Eoghan Murphy (Dublin Bay South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Today I present the Water Services Bill 2017 before the Dáil. The Bill provides for the repealing of the 2014 domestic water charging regime and it introduces a new programme focused on the promotion of water conservation under which a levy will apply in certain circumstances for usage of water above a reasonable threshold. In making these changes, provisions is made in the Bill for the extinguishing of liabilities under the current regime and the making of refunds to the 990,000 customers who paid in accordance with the 2014 Act. This will give rise to a new funding model for Irish Water, which is underpinned by the Bill. In so doing, the Bill reflects the recommendations of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on the Future Funding of Domestic Water Services, which was adopted in April by both Houses of the Oireachtas.

The publication of this Bill brings us towards completion of an extensive deliberative process about the funding of domestic water services. It does not bring us to a point I am personally happy with or proud of, but my responsibility in this matter is to implement this legislation to protect Irish Water as a single public water utility, and to continue to work to improve and modernise water services throughout the country.

While there may be many opposing views on the appropriate way to fund water services, this Oireachtas has had a full examination of the matter and came to a compromise that is reflected in the Oireachtas joint committee's report. The Government is following through on its commitment in the confidence and supply arrangement and is bringing forward the necessary legislation to reflect the outcome of the Oireachtas decision.

This Bill offers clarity and certainty to the water services sector about how services will be funded in the future and how Irish Water will implement the Government's objectives and priorities in this area. The Bill will also help to increase transparency and accountability regarding Irish Water and its performance, and will facilitate greater civic and public engagement on the issue of water as a natural resource to be protected and a service vital to our economic and social progress.

Over the past year we have seen an extensive policy debate on how we fund domestic water services. Last July, the Government enacted the Water Services (Amendment) Act 2016 to provide the political space for a calm, comprehensive and detailed debate on water services. In the same month an expert commission was established comprising international and national experts on water services, which dedicated five months to examining the various issues concerning the funding of domestic water services.

Last November the commission produced its report, which provided the basis for the work of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on the Future Funding of Domestic Water Services. The Oireachtas committee’s deliberative process, which comprised public meetings and detailed submissions from a range of public bodies and organisations, involved a welcome discussion about the many deficiencies with our public water and wastewater system, such as the reliance of 736,000 people on public water supplies in need of remedial action; the discharge of raw sewage directly into local waters at some 42 urban areas at the end of last year; and the loss through leakage of about 45% of all water produced.

The debate also outlined the evolving challenges that Irish Water faces, such as dealing with the presence of THMs - a potentially harmful by-product of the chlorination process - in public water supplies for about 400,000 people. It underlined the need for sustained investment so that we can address these problems and provide a secure, safe water supply and the appropriate level of wastewater treatment to protect public health, the economy and the environment.

A year of political and policy debate on water services also provided a further opportunity for Irish Water to outline the improvements it has made to our water and wastewater infrastructure during the first regulatory period. This included work such as the national programme to reduce boil water notices. By the end of 2016 Irish Water had removed long-term boil water notices that in January 2014 were affecting over 20,000 people. It also replaced or repaired almost 860 km of pipeline. To put this in context, this average of 286 km per year compares with an average of approximately 149 km per year during the final ten years of local authority responsibility for mains rehabilitation. There have been 28 new or upgraded water treatment plants. There have been 65 new or upgraded plants for wastewater treatment. Some 89 million litres of water are saved daily through the customer-focused first-fix repair scheme and related customer repairs, which is equivalent to the water needs of Galway city and county. These initiatives have all helped improve people’s daily lives, whether it be the quality of the water they drink, the ability to drink it without boiling it or simply living in an area free of raw sewage discharge.

Ultimately, we are having this funding debate because we are trying to improve people's lives and their environment, to facilitate business and industry, and to enable social and economic progress. Irish Water is doing this and I acknowledge the progress it and the local authorities have made. The deliberative process identified the problems, the progress and the need for funding certainty if we are to continue upgrading and modernising water services and infrastructure. In legislating for the Oireachtas joint committee's recommendations, we have devised a policy and funding framework through which the utility can implement national objectives and priorities within an economically regulated environment. This framework provides funding certainty from Government while maintaining a regulatory environment that demands efficiencies of Irish Water through the targets set by the Commission for Regulation of Utilities, known until now as the Commission for Energy Regulation but that will legally become the Commission for Regulation of Utilities in October.

While the processes of the expert commission and the Oireachtas joint committee resulted in enhanced debate on water services, the Government recognises the need for greater public confidence in the work of Irish Water, as well as further transparency about how it is funded and where that funding is invested. Therefore we are providing for a water advisory body to give the Oireachtas and Government assessments on the performance of Irish Water in implementing its business plan.

The Government also recognises the importance of the role of civic society in safeguarding water, be it for services to urban and rural areas or water in the aquatic environment. For this reason, and in line with our commitment in the draft river basin management plan for 2018 to 2021, we are providing for a national water forum, which will provide for public support for water services investment; public awareness of and participation in increased water conservation and initiatives to protect water quality in our rivers, lakes and coastal waters; and national appreciation of the links between water and public health, economic progress and environmental protection.

Those key aims will advance if wider civic society debates and analyses the issues on an ongoing basis. The Government will support that by facilitating and funding a national forum that will advise the Minister but will also have an independent voice to communicate directly with wider society.

I will now outline the purpose and operation of each section of the Bill. Section 1 sets out the Short Title of the Bill and provides that the various provisions of the Bill may be brought into operation on such day or days as may be appointed by order of the Minister. Section 2 sets out the definitions required to give effect to the provisions of all Parts of the Bill.

Section 3 is a standard provision enabling expenses incurred by the Minister in the administration of the Act to be paid out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas. Section 4 provides that every order and regulation under this Act shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is made and, if a resolution annulling such order or regulation is passed by either House within the next 21 days on which that House has sat after the order or regulation is laid before it, the order or regulation shall be annulled accordingly.

Section 5 outlines the legislation and regulations that are repealed or revoked. Section 6 provides for the insertion of certain definitions into the Water Services Act 2007. Section 7 provides for the inclusion of the proposed water advisory body and the water forum in bodies that can be funded by the Minister.

Section 8 provides for the Commission for Energy Regulation, which from 2 October will be known as the Commission for Regulation of Utilities, to carry out a review to assess the average consumption by customers of water services provided by Irish Water to dwellings, a review that shall be used by the Minister to set the threshold over which excessive usage payments may apply. The commission will also recommend to the Minister, based on consumption trends, the level of allowance to apply for usage by larger households, that is, where five or more people are ordinarily resident in a dwelling. The first such review will be carried out and completed within one month after the coming into operation of this section, with provision for future reviews prior to the expiration of the water charges plans.

Section 9 sets out the process for specifying the threshold amount and the allowance amount, following receipt by the Minister of the report from the commission. It specifies that the threshold amount shall be calculated by multiplying by 1.7 the amount assessed by the commission as the average rate of consumption of water services in a 12-month period. Allowances will be provided where the excessive use of water is caused by the size of the household or medical needs in the household. Provision is made that the multiplier of 1.7 may be reduced in time, but not within the first five years of the Act, and not without a positive resolution of the Oireachtas. Guidance is given in the Bill as to the factors that might be taken into account in such a change to the multiplier in the future, which are primarily based on promoting water conservation and sustainable use of resources, reflecting the objectives of the Water Framework Directive.

Section 10 provides for the insertion of a provision into the Water Services Act 2007 to preclude Irish Water from charging a customer for water services provided by Irish Water to the customer's dwelling where that customer does not consume water services in excess of the threshold amount.

Section 11 inserts a provision into the Water Services Act 2007 for Irish Water to give notice to a customer where the threshold amount has been exceeded. A customer who continues to consume water services in excess of the threshold amount after a period of six months following a notice from Irish Water will be liable to pay Irish Water for the provision of any water services that exceed the threshold amount. The payment levels will be set by the commission having regard to the costs of Irish Water. This period of time will allow the customer to adjust consumption patterns or avail of the Irish Water first-fix scheme where the usage is caused by a leak in the grounds of the dwelling.

Section 12 provides that a customer who receives a notice of the provision of water services exceeding the threshold amount can seek an allowance relating to the size of their household to reduce or eliminate their liability. The allowance amount set will be multiplied by the number of persons over four in a dwelling. Section 13 provides that a customer who receives a notice of the provision of water services exceeding the threshold amount can seek an exemption from payment where the usage arises from a medical need of a member of the household giving rise to additional demand for water services.

Section 14 provides for an amendment to section 2 of the No. 2 Act of 2013 to insert the definitions for dwelling, strategic funding plan, threshold amount and water services policy statement. Section 15 provides for the charging of customers of Irish Water for services that exceed the threshold amount in respect of which a customer is liable to make a payment for services relating to the connection of the dwelling to water services and reading and testing of water meters when requested by a customer of Irish Water in respect of the dwelling.

Section 16 provides that the Commission for the Regulation of Utilities, CRU, would have regard to a strategic funding plan prepared by Irish Water when considering a water charges plan submitted by Irish Water. Section 17 provides that Irish Water amends its code of practice to make additional provision in relation to the making of complaints to Irish Water by persons in relation to notices received relating to the provision of water services and exceeding the threshold amount, and in relation to refunds being made by Irish Water to customers who paid water charges.

Section 18 provides that the Minister shall prepare a water services policy statement before the expiration of the water charges plan. The statement will contain information concerning the policy objectives and priorities of the Government regarding the provision of water services in the State and will be laid before each House of the Oireachtas.

Section 19 provides for Irish Water to prepare and submit a strategic funding plan outlining the arrangements for implementation of the objectives of the water services strategic plan for the duration of the water charges plan being prepared by Irish Water. The strategic funding plan will include an estimate of the costs associated with the provision of water services to dwellings and recovery of those costs, costs associated with the provision of water services to premises other than dwellings and recovery of those costs and income of Irish Water and the operating expenditure and capital expenditure of Irish Water. The strategic funding plan will be laid before each House of the Oireachtas and will be furnished to the commission. I plan to bring forward a technical amendment on Committee Stage in relation to this section. The amendment will clarify that it is the objectives of the water services strategic plan that need to be taken account of when Irish Water is preparing the strategic funding plan.

Section 20 provides for grants to Irish Water, sanctioned by the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, towards the expenditure incurred by Irish Water in the provision of water services to a dwelling. Before deciding whether or not to make a grant, the Minister shall have regard to the water charges plan last approved by the CRU, the strategic funding plan last approved by the Minister, the refunds plan, the need to ensure the recovery of costs of water services in line with the Water Framework Directive and the environmental objectives of the EU Water Framework Directive.

The Oireachtas Joint Committee on the Future Funding of Domestic Water Services recommended that there should be funding certainty and long-term stability for the water utility. The proposals in sections 18 to 20 of the Bill are in line with those recommendations. The amendment to which I referred is a minor amendment in relation to the naming of one of those strategies.

Section 21 provides that no liability arises for domestic customers of Irish Water in respect of the period from 1 January 2015 to 30 June 2016, or to any related late payment charge, that is the period prior to the suspension of domestic water charges.

Section 22 provides Irish Water with the power to make a refund payment to a customer who paid a charge for the provision by Irish Water of water services to a dwelling. Section 23 strengthens the role of the commission in relation to disputes between Irish Water and those seeking a connection to the public water or wastewater network. Sections 24 to 32 provide for the establishment of the water forum and set out the provisions relating to the membership, functions and operation of the forum.

Sections 33 to 41 provide for the dissolution of the Public Water Forum and the National Rural Water Services Committee and set out the transitional arrangements in moving towards the establishment of the water forum. Sections 42 to 53 provide for the establishment of the water advisory body and set out the provisions relating to the membership, functions and operation of the body. Section 54 provides for the Minister for Finance to pay into the local government fund the local property tax collected during the financial years 2014 to 2017. Commencing with the year 2018, the Revenue Commissioners shall pay directly into the local government fund an amount equivalent to the local property tax received by them, including any interest or penalties.

Section 55 provides that the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport can issue directions in relation to the collection of motor tax under sections 5(3) and 7(1)of the 1998 Act. Section 56 amends section 4(6) of the Local Government Act 1998 to provide that from 1 January 2018 all motor tax collected by the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport shall be paid into the Central Fund.

Section 57 provides that from 1 January 2018 motor tax collected by local authorities shall be paid to the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport. It also clarifies that all motor tax collected up to 31 December 2017 shall continue to be paid into the local government fund. Section 58 amends section 6 of the Local Government Act 1998 and provides for the deletion of subsections 1A, 2A, 2AB, 2B, 2CA and 9. It also amends subsection 2C to provide for a payment to the Exchequer in 2017. Section 59 inserts the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport as the relevant Minister. It also adds a provision that any direction in force, remains in force.

Section 60 deals with consequential amendments to the water charges plan in force to give effect to the amendments in this Bill. Section 61 provides for Schedule 4 to the Valuation Act 2001 to be amended by the deletion of paragraph 21. This deletion will provide for the entire network used for the provision of water services by Irish Water or a person who holds a water services licence or land and buildings occupied by Irish Water or such a licence holder now to be rateable. Section 62 provides for the removal of the requirement provided for in section 70B(5) to register a domestic wastewater treatment system every five years. Associated subheads 70B(6) and (7) are also deleted.

The Bill represents a comprehensive policy and funding framework to bring settlement and certainty to the funding of domestic water services. The framework should also improve transparency and accountability in relation to Irish Water, providing greater information to the Oireachtas and the public on the utility's work.

This transparency and information will be underpinned by stronger public and civic engagement on water issues through the new water forum.

The Bill provides for retention of the incentive among households to conserve water and will help Ireland meet the objectives of the Water Framework Directive and other water directives. To be clear, the aim is not to establish a new domestic funding stream for Irish Water. We do not want any money raised through the excessive usage levy. We want to tackle the 8% using 30% of our water. They are using this much either because of leaks or because they are wilfully wasting it. We want to cut out both, not get money for this waste. Again, this is not about new funding. If there are additional people in a home, the allowance will be increased. Those with an illness will be exempt entirely. It provides a framework through which Irish Water and the water services sector can plan and deliver a modern, reliable public water and wastewater system. This is vital for families, communities, the economy and the environment.

The ongoing debate on the funding issues has diverted attention to some degree from the core challenge of fixing our weak water infrastructure. It is time to give certainty to the sector. The Bill presented today reflects the outcome of a serious consideration of the issues by this Oireachtas. It is time to implement these changes and support Irish Water in focusing on making the changes and investment required to build a modern public water and wastewater system that we can all be proud of. building on the progress already made. I commend the Bill to the House.

Barry Cowen (Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Fianna Fáil supports this legislation, which is a direct result of the confidence and supply arrangement of April 2016. This Bill brings to an end the disastrous water charges regime brought in by Fine Gael and the Labour Party. Now, only those who wilfully waste water after continued warnings will have to pay a fine. All paid bills will be fully refunded. It is a fair outcome to a deeply difficult issue. It is now time to draw a line under this issue and focus our attention on the greater challenges of health, housing and Brexit that face our country today.

Water charges were the straw that broke the back of many ordinary working families across Ireland. The groundswell of opposition to them bears testament to the depth of feeling working people had against a charge they knew was not necessarily going towards their water services. However, it was not the politics of thuggery that defeated water charges. This Bill is the outcome of long debates and hard-fought compromises. Fianna Fáil opposed a charge that cost the State more than it made and hit working families regardless of their ability to pay. After the inconclusive election where voters rejected the broken promises of Fine Gael and the Labour Party, we worked to give our voters a voice. While other parties and Deputies took a ten-week break, our party took the responsible path in reaching an agreement to put in place a stable Government. The pathway to the end of the failed water charges regime was laid out in detail in the confidence and supply arrangement. The work of the expert commission and the Oireachtas Joint Committee on the Future Funding of Domestic Water Services has led to this Bill. Over 22 meetings and detailed discussions, a clear route forward was set out. As a result of that work, we have secured the end of the failed water charges regime, equity of treatment between those who paid and those who did not, an increase in supports for rural dwellers and reform of Irish Water. This outcome was the result of engagement and compromise, the stuff of responsible politics.

It is important to take note of the water charges fiasco that has culminated in this legislation. Many commentators have criticised the decision to end water charges but have failed to acknowledge the reasons the policy failed. If centre ground politics is to have a future, it must recognise where mistakes have been made, take responsibility for them and work to rectify them. Stubbornness should not be mistaken for bravery, indifference should not be confused with principle and rigidity should not be viewed as firmness. This is not a technocracy. Both responsibility and responsiveness must be joined together in a functioning democracy. We must have the bravery to see where things have gone wrong and address them.

This Bill sets about bringing a failed and democratically rejected policy to an end. I want to reiterate the chronicle of failures. By every measure the water charges regime introduced by Fine Gael and the Labour Party utterly failed to achieve its objectives. After a dizzying series of more than 12 U-turns, the Government lost money on domestic water tariffs. In 2015, only 53% of bills due were paid. Some €100 million was spent on the water grant while €41 million is due in interest

repayments over the year and another €25 million on administration costs. On this basis, the State lost €22 million in total on its water charges regime in 2015. Water charges have cost the State money. This is important for all Deputies and stakeholders to remember. We had a tax that cost the State money.

This policy debacle, combined with the failure to pass the EUROSTAT test, meant that the very reason Irish Water and water charges were introduced was completely lost. No additional revenue was available for investment in the water infrastructure due to domestic water charges. It was not off balance sheet or able to garner new revenues. The water network was no better off and indeed suffered from Government cutbacks to capital investment. It is against this backdrop that ending water charges must be set, not any hypothetical best-case scenario.

I know the former Minister, Deputy Alan Kelly, has been deeply critical of this decision, criticisms he has voiced both inside and outside this House. Deputy Kelly reminds me of Japanese soldiers in remote islands of the Pacific who were still fighting the Second World War in the mid-1970s.

Jan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Cowen has a selective memory himself.

Barry Cowen (Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Kelly and his colleagues must recognise that the war is over. It is time to move on to another mess of his Government, namely, the housing crisis. In regard to the specifics of this legislation, building on the work of the Oireachtas joint committee, over 92% of households will not have a water bill. The remaining 8% will have until July 2019 to avail of the first fix policy, a medical exemption or the large family clause. Beyond that I believe only people wilfully wasting water, despite the various warnings and measures to assist them, will be fined. I believe this is fair and in line with our EU obligations. The Commission for Energy Regulation, CER, will set what the payment level for each litre above the threshold will be. This will be inserted in the water charges plan, as the Minister outlined in respect of section 21 of the Water Services Act 2013. The Bill allows for the multiplier of 1.7 times the average usage to be reduced by a Dáil vote if the Minister feels certain criteria have been met. Critics have attacked this as a slippery slope whereby the threshold is steadily reduced, taking more and more households into the payment system. However, this wilfully ignores the fact the Dáil retains power over the multiplier. I am informed the clause is required to meet EU laws but the key point is that Deputies have complete control over this process, not any Minister. Given that over a series of motions across the past 18 months we have heard other parties call for a Dáil vote on water charges, I am certain all Deputies agree this Chamber is the place where such power should be vested.

I want to draw attention to the need to equalise treatment between rural dwellers and those on the public mains. Fianna Fáil secured a significant increase in support to group water schemes. I am calling on the Minister to expedite the establishing of the working group on rural water supplies to ensure supports levels are fair to all citizens regardless of where they live.

Drawing on the committee’s work and legal advice, we believe this Bill meets our EU obligations. It also ensures a clear route forward for the capital investment required in our water network to ensure it becomes fit for purpose. It has been a long road to this point. There have been deeply unsavoury moments along the way that reflect badly on those involved. However, street thuggery has not won and democracy has. Votes cast for parties that were willing to show leadership and take responsibility led to policies being enacted. The end of the failed water charges system is a testament to practical politics. It means only water wasters will be penalised. For the overwhelming majority of households, water charges are gone. Let us pass the Bill and mark the end of a failed policy. It is time to turn the page and move on to more pressing national challenges. We hope to play our part, along with others, in ensuring progress is made on these issues.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Cowen seems to have forgotten some of the more heated sessions at the water charges committee, to which I will return to refresh his memory and point to the difference between what he claims to have got at the end of the process and what is included in this legislation. The Bill before us is the latest in the long and sorry saga of Fianna Fáil's and Fine Gael's water charge regime. Deputy Cowen also forgot to tell us that it was Fianna Fáil who first put water charges on the table, in its agreement with the troika and its own programme for so-called recovery. At that point, they would have been in excess of €400 per household.

It is always worth remembering that we did not need to go down this route. We did not have to have metered domestic water charges. That is because the Government and its negotiators had secured an exemption in Article 9.4 of the water services directive. We could have funded water services directly from general taxation, not in the failed way in which it had historically been done by Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael through the chronic underinvestment of local authorities but by way of a real and ambitious programme of general taxation. The problem was that the State simply did not want to invest the required level of revenue prior to the creation of Irish Water and metered domestic water charges. Irish Water's funding model was designed to allow the State to continue to underinvest. The very complex, off-balance sheet model underpinning Irish Water required the introduction of water charges. They were never about conservation and there is a growing body of academic research that shows that domestic water charges do not result in a long-term reduction in domestic water usage. They were never about asking people to pay for the service but underpinning a model that had been designed to allow the State not to invest in this vital strategic public service.

The arguments of those who are opposed to water charges are sometimes lost and we are accused of naked populism or having unconsidered views, but there are three fundamental reasons those of us on this side of the House opposed metered domestic water charges and the Irish Water funding model. The first is commodification. Something changes in a society when one starts to link access to water which is so essential for human life with payment in order that people do not have an entitlement to it on the basis of need but on their ability to pay. That is a fundamental shift which, in countries that have gone down that route, has a very clear consequence, namely, water poverty, something about which we never hear the Government talk in these debates, where families pay a disproportionate or an unacceptable proportion of their income on domestic water services. This member state of the European Union has the unique distinction of being the only one in which there is no water poverty. Some manage it better than others, but it is to be found in all of them.

The second reason we oppose water charges is financialisation. This is another of the great unspoken realities underpinning the original model. If the State refuses to invest the funds required, it requires a utility - in this case, Irish Water - to be reliant on private sector borrowing for funding which comes at a significantly greater cost. One of the most interesting things we discovered during the course of the Oireachtas committee's hearings was the NewERA report which had previously been denied to us under freedom of information legislation but which showed very clearly the additional cost to the State and the taxpayer of going down the private financing route.

The final element is privatisation. The Government will state it never had any intention of privatising water services, but, to some extent, that does not matter. The policy process followed in this country was also followed in many other parts of the world and it involved a set of steps. Even if the original intention was not to privatise a utility, given the level of interest in the private sector and its desire to invest in such services for profit and given the unwillingness of governments to invest, once commodification and reliance on private finance was introduced, privatisation, almost always and universally, followed.

I was once asked why I was against charges for water but not against charges for electricity and gas. The simple answer is that water provision is fundamentally different. It is a finite resource. There is only a limited amount available, as we know from many studies. Unlike electricity and gas, it is the new oil, the oil of the 21st century. The scale of private financial investment across the world shows that when one goes down this route, those who need water the most often have the poorest access to it. I have no doubt that if Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael had got their way, we would at this point be in a discussion on the possible privatisation of services. We know from looking across the water to England what that means - it means lower levels of investment in infrastructure, higher levels of charges and poor quality service.

Contrary to Deputy Cowen's reading of how we ended up forcing the Government to backtrack on this issue, what mattered was a campaign by hundreds of thousands of people who marched, demonstrated, boycotted and used their influence in the general election. One of the first stunning successes of the Right2Water movement of citizens, communities, trade unions and political parties was forcing Fianna Fáil into making two very significant U-turns in its manifesto for the last general election in which, for the first time, it clearly and unequivocally called for the scrapping of water charges and the abolition of Irish Water, a decision I welcomed as a good one. That would not have happened without that mass mobilisation of people across the State.

The Right2Water movement called for a number of things, which are directly relevant to the legislation in front of us and the work of the special Oireachtas committee. The first was for the enshrining in public ownership of the water system in the Constitution, the second was the funding of water services from general taxation and, crucially, increased investment to meet the level of need in the service, while the third was the abolition of water charges and metering and the replacement of Irish Water with a genuinely public and democratically accountable water and sanitation board. Of all the many campaigns in which I have been involved, it has been one of the most successful, but have we yet got to the end of the battle? No, we have not. Have we achieved everything we set out to do? No, we have not. The campaign group is still in place and mobilised and watching proceedings in this House with acute interest.

Contrary to Deputy Cowen's portrayal of the confidence and supply agreement as mature politics, it was really about kicking the can down the road by the two parties on either side of the House who needed each other's support. As they could not reach an agreement, they threw the issue to an expert group and then to a special Oireachtas committee, to be dealt with at a later stage. The first problem for Fine Gael was presented by the recommendations made by the expert group which took the party by surprise. The crucial one involved the recognition of the fact that domestic water services should be funded, in the main, from general taxation. That was a huge shift which discomfited the members of the party. The expert group also fully supported Right2Water's proposition that there should be constitutional protection for water services, as well as making some very good recommendations on other issues.

We then had the special Oireachtas committee. I am not sure whether one could call it calm and reasoned as a lot of the time it became very acrimonious, but we managed to get through the work with some delays. The recommendations made in our report are also important, particularly as most of them are not included in the legislation in front of us. They include constitutional protection for the public water system. As Deputy Cowen rightly said, equity of treatment for those in group water schemes was important for us, as were greater levels of public engagement and transparency, in relation to which there are some moves made in the legislation. Crucially, it called for a far more ambitious programme targeted at water conservation, planning regulations, education and the use of new technologies.

While a number of us did not support the final report, and I will come to that in a second, clearly there was a range of issues on which there was absolute unanimity. The irony of the legislation in front of us is that it is those issues on which there was absolute unanimity that we have yet to see any action from the Government.

That leads me to the Bill before us. This is a complex piece of legislation. However, the Minister speed-reading through a set of bullet points which tell us what is in the explanatory memorandum but do not go into much detail about how the actual text of the Bill will achieve those objectives is deeply disappointing. What have we got? Yet again, another complex piece of water services legislation is being rushed through the House. Our deadline for amendment is Friday. We will rush through Committee Stage next week having only got the Bill from publication last Friday. I am not casting any aspersions on the hard-working officials who produced the legislation but when the House is forced to proceed with these types of Bills in this way, mistakes are made and we have seen that previously, particularly in regard to water services legislation.

I am really surprised with the miscellaneous amendments on property and motor tax. They might be very simple and straightforward but they will be lost in this debate and again, we will not have sufficient time at committee to ensure they are what the Minister says they are.

In terms of what is not in the Bill, there is nothing on the referendum. This House has passed legislation for a referendum. The committee has commenced pre-legislative scrutiny but we cannot progress that Bill because the former Minister and now the current Minister are telling us that they are still awaiting advice from the Attorney General. On the one hand the Minister expects us to pass the legislation he wants to get through the House, such as the Construction Industry Register Ireland, CIRI, legislation and other things coming down the line, but we are none the wiser in terms of when the referendum legislation transpires. I get the feeling that there is a deliberate attempt by the Department to drag its heels on that Bill to prevent the Oireachtas committee from doing its important work. That is disrespectful. I understand that the Attorney General is busy and the Government has a lot of work but it has been almost a year since that Bill was passed in this House by a majority vote, and we still cannot get it through the formal Committee Stage. If the Government does not want to support it, that is fine. If the Government wants to propose amendments, that is fine, but it should come back to committee and let us proceed on all of that.

I strongly echo and support Deputy Cowen's remarks about those in group water schemes. There has been plenty of time over the past year to tackle this issue. I believe what people want to hear is that the Government is absolutely committed to equality of treatment between those in group and private water schemes and those in the public system. If there is no standing charge for people accessing domestic water services for their home in urban Ireland there should be no standing charge for those in rural Ireland, and where additional costs are incurred regarding the installation and maintenance of private or group water schemes, that that would be covered. It is actually very small amounts of money in the bigger scheme of things from the data we got at the committee, but I have yet to hear the Government say it is absolutely committed to that recommendation in a report.

One of the most interesting parts of the committee's deliberations was the very detailed discussions we had on conservation. There were very good contributions from all Members of the House from Fianna Fáil, the Labour Party, the Green Party, ourselves and others yet where are the proposed amendments to planning legislation, building regulations, investment in retrofitting programmes and ensuring that, for example, with social housing new builds all local authorities have to have the highest standards, for example, of water efficiency and water conservation? Local authorities are doing good stuff but there needs to be standardisation of that.

For me, however, there are a couple of really big question marks over the Bill. The single biggest row in the water committee, and Deputy O'Sullivan will remember this, was a row between Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael. Fine Gael wanted an excess charge based on average household consumption. Fianna Fáil wanted an excess charge or a fine, as it calls it, based on individual average consumption. In fact, in the final report, a very well paid senior counsel inserted a sentence which gave us both options and did not recommend one or the other.

From my reading of the Bill, Fine Gael has won-----

Barry Cowen (Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Five-person households.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----because the average household charge will be based on the dwelling.

Barry Cowen (Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

How many in the house-----

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will come to that in a second, but that was not the argument Deputy Cowen made during the committee. He wanted the basic threshold to be on average usage per person, not per household. Fine Gael has clearly won that and I believe Deputy Cowen has some explaining to do, particularly to his own colleagues who he marched up to the hill on two or three occasions during the committee-----

Barry Cowen (Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is five-person households.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----and back down again over this very issue.

Jan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

He was supporting Deputy Ó Broin at one stage.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

He was, when he could not get what he wanted from Fine Gael, although now he is conceding to its central point at the start of that row.

With regard to an allowance for households of five or more, where does that leave the four-person household, which is particularly disadvantaged under this proposal? It also creates perverse incentives for the one-person household which, if I read the legislation right, will have the same allowance as two-, three- and four-person households. It is not clear whether this charge will only apply to the 8% of households Deputy Cowen spoke about or a large percentage, which was Fine Gael's argument throughout the course of the committee. Deputy Cowen is right. The multiplier can only be reduced by this House, but it can only be reduced. For example, under the legislation this House is denied the opportunity to raise that multiplier if it so wished, so it is not the great saving grace Deputy Cowen believes.

We are also not clear whether this is a fine or a charge. My understanding of the legislation is that if there is excess usage there will be a metric charge depending on how much one is using. That means it is not a fine. It is a charge per unit of water used over a certain amount.

That leads to another problem. What about all those households that do not have meters because not only has the metering programme stopped but Irish Water has reprofiled the €140 million of unspent money from phases 1 and 2 of the metering programme, sensibly in my view, into the overall capital budget. If we pass this legislation, we could have two households on the one street - one with a meter and one without - both using, according to this legislation, excessive amounts and one is hit with a charge and the other is not. That is a recipe for legal action against the State and Irish Water if ever I heard one.

I also have concerns around the medical exemption because it is not clear how it will operate. That is one of the things a committee would rightfully properly interrogate and I doubt it will have the opportunity to do that. Crucially, we started off in a discussion with Fianna Fáil in the committee on the future of water services around how to assist families to reduce leaks because nobody knows whether the idea that 8% of households are using 30% of water is because of excessive leaks in the piping system, excessive use, willful use, large family size, etc. There is no additional support post the first fix facility to assist those families, so let us say this legislation goes through because Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael support it. Let us say my grandmother, for example, has a so-called excessive use. Let us say that is identified and there is a very significant capital cost required to fix that, and she has already had the first fix fee to fix something else on the property. Who will fix it for her? Instead of providing the assistance, which many of us discussed at the committee and thought was a good idea, we are going to hit her with a charge.

There are so many holes in this legislation that I have to say it is not comprehensive. It will not settle this matter once and for all and I believe people who support it will have to do an awful lot of explaining because those groups of people who will be particularly disadvantaged - families of four, people with leaks they cannot afford to fix and people with meters on the same street or neighbourhood as those without - will want to know.

My last point is that the water charges regime as introduced by Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael is not dead. It has been badly damaged thanks to the hard-working campaign in which many of us were involved, but it is in retreat. One could almost say it is in hibernation. It may only affect 4%, 6%, 8% or 10% of households but that is today. If we allow this legislation to pass, the infrastructure for domestic metered water charges, with all of the negative consequences that come with that, remains in place and a future Government, which may even be after the next election - a fine coalition of Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael - can come back and do exactly what it wants, which is to extend that charge out to ever-increasing numbers of people, commodify a valuable service that is water and revert to the bad model of water services delivery that is becoming the norm across the world. The consequences of that is that there will be water poverty, increased charges and poorer quality services, particularly for those in need. For those reasons, not only will Sinn Féin be absolutely opposing this legislation but we will be doing as much as we can to ensure that those problems with this Bill are fully exposed in committee so that when they start to hit people in the streets, they will know to blame Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael.

Jan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will begin by thanking Deputy Cowen for the wonderful moral lecture about the fine qualities of courage, leadership, responsibility and so on. Quite frankly, what we have here is a complete fudge between Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael, none of that fine sentiment on which he lectured us-----

Barry Cowen (Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is a matter of opinion.

Jan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----as well as a very selective memory, pointed out already by Deputy Ó Broin, of Fianna Fáil's role in instigating this whole thing and signing up to water charges with the troika. At least the Minister, Deputy Murphy, had the decency to say he is not personally proud of the legislation, and he should not be, but-----

Barry Cowen (Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is the Deputy?

Pat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy-----

Jan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----unfortunately, it is being presented to us by the other party to the agreement as if it were this wonderful, brave legislation, which of course it is not at all.

Regarding the first of the two recommendations of the committee, I did not vote for it but I fully support the first recommendation, as everyone does, which concerns public ownership and committing to a referendum in that regard. I know this was not going to be in this legislation, but the timing of eight referendums was announced after the Cabinet meeting this week and none of them was a referendum on the retention of the water network in public ownership. I would have thought we at least need that as the backdrop to whatever legislation we are dealing with because it was something on which we all agreed and was the very first recommendation. It is needed in order to assure the public that the water network will not be privatised, even though legislation was introduced that would in some ways copper-fasten it in so far as it was provided that if there were any suggestion of privatisation, the proposal would have to go to the people. Having said that, we support the recommendation, but I do not understand why we do not have a date for a referendum on public ownership of the water network.

The second issue that was addressed by the committee was funding and security of funding. It was clearly stated that this would be needed in order to satisfy our obligations under the Water Framework Directive and our other EU obligations. The recommendation was to introduce a long-term multi-annual budgetary cycle that "must be clearly identifiable within existing taxation to meet the cost of domestic water services for the water utility in order to comply with Ireland's EU obligations". However, the Bill, specifically on page 17, in sections 19 and 20, refers to an obligation on Irish Water to prepare a strategic funding plan and submit it to the Minister. Further on, in section 20, the Bill states: "Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), the Minister may, subject to such conditions as he or she sees fit in each financial year, make grants to Irish Water to such extent as may be sanctioned by the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas towards the expenditure incurred by Irish Water in the provision of water services to a dwelling." Essentially, that is the usual round of Estimates whereby water services will have to compete with other public spending. I do not see any ring-fencing of the money or any security into the future that would satisfy either those committee members who wanted that security or the European Union. Therefore, I do not think the Bill satisfies the first or second recommendations, or indeed others.

One of the other recommendations concerns conservation, which has been referred to by previous speakers. There was a very strong commitment to conservation measures in the committee - we spent quite a long time debating it - and I cannot see anything much in the way of incentives in this regard in the Bill, even though the Minister in his concluding remarks said: "The Bill provides for retention of the incentive among households to conserve water and will help Ireland to meet the objectives of the Water Framework Directive and other water directives." There is very little about conservation in the Bill. These are some of the direct recommendations of the committee. There are passing references to the river basin management plan, EU rules and the Water Framework Directive but there is nothing to suggest how all of these will be complied with, apart from putting most of the onus on the Commission for Energy Regulation to ensure that happens. That is all I can see in the Bill, and I am concerned it will not satisfy the requirements of the European Union.

Another issue, one that has been raised by Deputy Ó Broin, is the charges applied to those who exceed the average rate multiplied by 1.7. Of course, Deputy Ó Broin is right about this. It is a win for Fine Gael. Fianna Fáil clearly argued for the individual multiplier rather than the household multiplier. The other issue is that it does not at all address how the 48% of the population who do not have meters can be measured accurately and charged for use above the threshold. I suspect that people who have meters and get charged might well have a case to make that they are being unduly punished when those who do not have meters and cannot be as accurately assessed may well escape any kind of penalty or charge. Again, a big play was made by Fianna Fáil in the committee of the 2007 Act and the importance of using it, and terms, fines, levies and charges were bandied about. Clearly, the Fine Gael side of the House wanted charges and that is what it is getting. I wish to be quite clear that we support charging people who use water excessively, with the exemptions regarding issues of health, family size and so on being taken into account.

Barry Cowen (Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Beyond the average.

Jan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are quite upfront about this. We have suffered because of our position.

Barry Cowen (Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does Deputy O'Sullivan know what the average is? She does not even know what the average is.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy O'Sullivan, without interruption.

Jan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We believe people should be charged for excessive use of water. We are quite direct about that and we believe it is a principled, left-wing position that is taken in most other European countries by principled, left-wing parties so we disagree with others on the left in that regard.

Barry Cowen (Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Labour Party is not a principled, left-wing party.

Jan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I also agree that the issues of rural dwellings, group schemes and so on are not adequately dealt with. Again, that was a recommendation in the "Equity and fairness" section of the report of the Oireachtas committee.

This is a kicking of the can down the road, specifically down the road of charging people until certain elections are completed.

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, Solidarity)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Correct.

Jan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If I read the Bill correctly, the first bills will go out in January 2019. We may well have had a general election by then. That will be up to confidence and supply, etc. Then there will be six months for the Government to straighten out its affairs, which, I presume, will bring us beyond the local elections as well. I think there might be a political agenda in the timetable here that is again related to kicking the can down the road.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

They would never do that, would they?

Jan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No, they would never do that.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputies, please.

Jan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have made the main points I wanted to make. I also agree that until Friday is a very short period in which we can propose amendments. Our objections to the Bill are different from those of other Deputies. In some areas they are the same, as Deputy Ó Broin has outlined. Obviously, we have a different position on charging for excess water and we are quite upfront about that but, overall, this really is a fudge and an attempt to get off a political hook and it is not satisfactory legislation.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We now move on to Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett, who I understand is sharing time.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am sharing time with Deputy Paul Murphy.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Whoever is in possession at 10.15 p.m. will move the adjournment.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We should commence our contribution by taking a drink of water because the people who wanted to bring in water charges - Fianna Fáil first and then Fine Gael - wanted to put a price tag on this glass of water. In fact, there has been a running joke with the ushers here. Every time we have asked for a glass of water over the past four years, they have said, "Have a glass now before they put a price tag on it or we will charge you."

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We could have a Dáil tap-----

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Exactly, although there probably would have been subsidised prices for water in the Dáil.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

10 o’clock

No bilaterals. Please address the Chair.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

They might have been subsidised prices here but they would have been charging us for the water. That is what people recognised.

Setting aside all the disingenuous propaganda from the Government about the environmental reasons for bringing in water charges, people knew, and they were right, that the real agenda was to put a price tag on this in order that, at some point, someone could profit out of it. That was the agenda. The Government tried to cover over this fact with constant talk of the need to, and its concern to, invest in the decrepit water infrastructure and to ensure water conservation. It tried to create an equation that as there is 47% of water leaking out of the pipes, which is true, therefore what we need to do is put meters on people's households to reduce their water usage. It was claimed that the reason we have 47% of the water leaking out of our water system is because of excessive usage - people drinking too much water, having too many baths, flushing the toilet too often or, my favourite one, swimming pools, because there were apparently tens of thousands of people with swimming pools. It was all nonsense.

Belatedly, after all the expenditure on water meters, all the political confrontation, debate and so on, the expert group finally confirmed something we had been saying right from the beginning, which was that ordinary householders were not excessive users of water and that, in fact, we used less water per household and per person than people did in the UK, where they have water charges and privatisation, and that we are low users of household water compared with most of our European counterparts. All the justification was nonsense. The real reason we had decrepit water infrastructure was decades of underinvestment by Fianna Fáil-led and Fine Gael-led Governments, because they are the only Governments we have had in this State. It was Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael chronically underinvesting in the water infrastructure and failing to address the massive leaks in the mains, not excessive use in individual households or even leaks. Even Irish Water finally confirmed belatedly that only 7% of the leakage out of the system was to do with households. The vast majority of the leakage was in the mains and the reason this was not addressed was because Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael, quite often propped up by the Labour Party, had failed to invest sufficiently in the water infrastructure.

That situation worsened after the economic collapse in 2008 when one of the first things to be hit was spending on infrastructure, including water infrastructure. The big drop in investment came post 2008 courtesy of Fianna Fáil and the Green Party and was then followed on by Fine Gael and the Labour Party, when average investment in water infrastructure dropped by about €100 million. It is thanks to those guys. It is not thanks to excessive users or these mythical people with swimming pools, but thanks to the Government decision to axe investment in that area. The people did not believe them because it was not true.

It was not pragmatic politics that finally resolved this. It is almost three years to the day since the political establishment of this country were shocked on 11 October 2014 by a demonstration of 100,000 people taking to the streets, a demonstration, by the way, not characterised by political thuggery, but by grandparents, children, mothers with prams and every sector of society mobilising the length and breadth of the country to come to Dublin in an unprecedented demonstration and saying, "Water is a human right and we reject your agenda to turn it into a commodity out of which someone can make profit." That shocked the political establishment and forced the beginning of a retreat which has finally culminated in the Bill before us today, which is going to repeal the water charges and pay back these people who were bullied by the establishment into paying the charges that were forced out of them.

While I often criticise this place as being at bit of a talking shop that does not achieve much, the first meeting of the Right2Water campaign happened in LH2000. I organised the meeting and it was attended by Sinn Féin, the Socialist Party, Deputy Seamus Healy, the Independents 4 Change, the Mandate trade union, the Unite trade union and the Communications Workers Union. We came up with the name Right2Water and said that water is a human right and that we were going to resist this, and we named the date for the 11 October demonstration. We did not know at that time how big it was going to be or how historic that movement was going to be. The battle was won by the people on the streets in mass peaceful demonstrations, forcing retreat after retreat on the political establishment.

Then we come to this Bill. Finally, the establishment is forced to capitulate but is trying to leave the door open, still using the same disingenuous arguments about water conservation and excessive use. What I find incredible is that, in all the time the Government has talked about water conservation, it never put in place an actual water conservation grant to encourage or assist people to conserve water. It is still not here in this Bill. It gave €100, which was a bribe and which was not attached in any way at all to having to undertake any water conservation measures, and even now in this Bill there is no water conservation. We bothered to put in our pre-budget submissions for the past three years extra money to help householders who have leaks but cannot afford to fix them to fix them, and we put in other water conservation measures. It is proof positive that the Government never cared about water conservation and that it was never the issue for it. It was always about getting the charging regime going, getting a revenue stream going, getting all the private consultants in, getting our friend, Denis O'Brien, to have the contracts to put in the water meters, and all these people at the big honey pot and the big cash cow. They could make a fortune out of it and the people would pay. Even still, the Government will not put in a water conservation grant. It wants to leave the door open to the future reintroduction of water charges with this excessive charge and by having some billing structure which it can expand later, in a few years, after 2019, when it thinks the political environment might have changed for the better.

All the way along, dishonesty and disingenuousness has characterised the Government's approach but the people found it out and they defeated it. We will resist the attempt in this Bill to leave the door open. Indeed, if the Government makes the mistake of trying to reintroduce water charges in the future, it will feel the wrath of people power and the people's movement that defeated it over the past four years. If the Government cares about water conservation, I look forward to its support for our amendments to this Bill.

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, Solidarity)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will split my speech in half. I will deal with the details of the Bill in the second half tomorrow and will deal now with the question of how far we have come in the debate on water charges. I remember very well when we would be met in here every day, and in the media, by Ministers from Fine Gael and the Labour Party who would tell us that everyone would have to pay their water charges and that, "Come what may, you will be paying your water charges."

It is more than three years since Phil Hogan told us that those who did not pay their water charges would have their water turned down to a trickle. It is two years since the Taoiseach, Deputy Leo Varadkar, said that after the concessions were made at the end of 2014 those "reasonable people" would now definitely be joining the payers. All has changed and changed utterly. We have legislation before us that abolishes the water charges as they were and abolishes any arrears people may have faced. The late payment fees and all the attempts to force people to pay are all gone, as we said they could be gone. We now have refunds for those who were bullied into paying. We were the first to raise this and to argue that refunds should be paid. These represent very important victories for the anti-water charges movement.

A big question in this debate, and it was reflected in Deputy Cowen's comments, is how and why this happened. Why did it happen? What lessons are to be drawn about how politics works? For any objective observer who looks at the positions of the different political parties the answer is clear. Water charges, as they were, were defeated by a mass movement of protests. Deputy Cowen shamefully smears this as street thuggery. There were hundreds of thousands of people on the streets, along with community organisations. There was resistance and opposition to the imposition of meters. Centrally there was mass organised non-payment, which ultimately saw 73% of people refusing to pay. One of the consequences of such a movement, and one of the indications of the pressure that was built by that movement, was the shift in positions - as has been pointed out by Fianna Fáil - to the point that at the last general election a significant majority of Deputies were elected to the House on a platform of the abolition of Irish Water and the abolition of water charges, despite the fact Fianna Fáil originally signed this country up for water charges.

What could have been a total and unambiguous victory, with the complete abolition of water charges and the referendum to enshrine public ownership of Irish Water into the Constitution, was turned into something less than that. It was turned into something less than that by Fianna Fáil. It was not turned into it by Fine Gael because Fine Gael are still for water charges and never pretended otherwise. It was turned into something less by Fianna Fáil in three stages. The first stage was in the post-election negotiations with Fine Gael where it gave up on its election commitment, contained in the Fianna Fáil election manifesto, of which I still have a copy, that called for the abolition of Irish Water and water charges. It gave up on the commitment to abolish Irish Water then.

The second stage was in the dying stages of the committee on which we had a working majority in regard to the decision to get rid of water charges and to have no consumption charges for water. This was on 5 April. The next day, or the following week, we had legal advice that contradicted the legal advice of Fianna Fáil and that was all it needed to go and do a very dodgy, backroom deal with Fine Gael to fit back in some form of charge for the usage of water. It was called excess usage but it was a consumption charge for water.

The third stage may be ahead of us but I worry very much about it. I listened to the Minister for Housing, Planning and Local Government, Deputy Eoghan Murphy, in the Chamber yesterday. He said that the referendum on public ownership of Irish Water is no longer a priority for the Government like it once was. Is Fianna Fáil going to acquiesce in that also, despite jumping up and down previously? The lesson is really clear and one that most people knew beforehand, namely, never, ever trust Fianna Fáil. Fianna Fáil will always make election promises and it will break those election promises. Fianna Fáil will suggest making a deal with some side of a committee and it will break that in order to make a deal that sells out the aspirations of many of those who voted for Fianna Fáil.

The other lesson is that regardless of the machinations of Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael, we can beat them anyway. They have been beaten before and they will be beaten again. The lesson for people is the people power of organisation.