David Cullinane (Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 3, subsection (2), line 22, after "Act" to insert "other than section 24 ".

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy O'Dowd, and express my disappointment that amendment No. 1 and some other amendments we tabled have been ruled out of order. The reason given is that they are in conflict with the principle of the Bill but it is still our right to table amendments. If we do not agree with the principle of the Bill, I contend it is our right to seek to change the legislation to bring it into line with what we see as the correct principles which should underpin the provision of water services in this State. However, I have to accept the ruling of the Chair.

In dealing with amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 6, the Minister of State might remember that we had a very similar debate when he brought forward the household charge. We had a very interesting debate on poverty proofing policy decisions in this State. During that debate, we made the point that the household charge would have an impact on many low income families, that there would be a level of resistance to the household charge and that people were sick and tired of a whole raft of new taxes, stealth charges and regressive charges coming at working families at a time when the State was in a very difficult financial situation. We made the point again that much of what the Government was doing was having a damaging effect on the domestic economy but, more crucially in the context of the amendment we tabled then and which we table now, we were concerned about the issue of poverty.

The Minister of State will have heard the term "fuel poverty" on many occasions and will know that many people in this State suffer from fuel poverty. As a consequence of what the Minister is going to do here, namely, setting up a Uisce Éireann and introducing water charges, we may well see water poverty as we do not know what waivers will be in place and how it will impact on low-income families or people on welfare. That would be an appalling situation in which to find ourselves.

The amendment specifically would delay the coming into operation of the section and would empower the Commission for Energy Regulation to make functions to bring about water charges. That is essentially what the Government wants to do. We seek to delay that until a poverty impact analysis has been carried out.

Far too many people in this State are on low pay and are on social welfare, because jobs are simply not there. Far too many people in this State live in poverty and live just above the poverty line. When one looks at all the new taxes and charges coming into being, all of that will have very negative impact on families in this State. Let us just remind ourselves of what those families are looking at. Last year they were faced with a flat rate household charge of ¤100. They will now be faced with this family home tax, because it most certainly is not a property tax, of on average between ¤300 and ¤500, depending of the value of their home. We will see an increase in the carbon level of ¤5 per tonne. We saw a reduction in the fuel allowance from 32 weeks to 26 weeks and a 2% VAT increase, which disproportionately impacts on low-income families and households. There is a projected increase of approximately 1.9% in inflation. There was an increase in fares for public transport, an increase in the drug payment scheme threshold and an increase in school transport costs. In addition to all of that, we will now ask those same families to pay water charges.

It is getting to a stage where people are asking themselves what they paying all these charges for. If they are paying income tax, PRSI, the universal social charge and more taxes than ever, why is it that they are now being asked to pay water charges and property tax in addition to all of that?

There is also an issue of how much all of this will cost the State and the fact that money could be better spent elsewhere. The Government claims that installing the water meters will cost ¤500 million and that money will be borrowed on the strength of that. What will happen if it costs more than ¤500 million? Who will bear that cost? Will the cost in any way be borne by the householder? The local authorities' professional officers have said the true cost of installing water meters will be ¤1.2 billion. Would it not be better to spend the money on improving the water infrastructure in this State rather than use taxpayers' money to put meters outside people's doors which the Government can use as some sort of tap to get more taxes from them?

At the same time, the Government will not introduce any new taxes for higher earners or will not look at the concept of a wealth tax. It has no difficulty putting a tap outside people's houses which will measure the water going into the house, for which the Government will charge them as a new form of taxation, but it has still not spelled out exactly how that will be done and whether it will be a flat rate or based on usage. All of those issues need to be dealt with.

There are other amendments to which I will get but, obviously, I do not agree with water charges. There are some services which should be provided on the basis of need and on the basis we pay taxes. I do not have a difficulty with water conservation. There are many things the Government could do to improve water conservation - for example, education, water harvesting, dual flush toilets and so on which could be tackled at the planning stage. There are many measures people could take. I would not have a difficulty with enforcement where householders waste water and ensuring people have to pay for what is essentially wastage but what I cannot support is the principle of people having to pay for water. It is a precious commodity and costs money to get into people's houses but people pay for that through their taxes.

Will the Minister ensure that when he brings forward policies like this, sits at the Cabinet table and looks at introducing new taxes and charges, he does so in the context of equality and poverty proofing many of these measures? I have no doubt whatsoever that when these charges are brought in, more people in this State will be living in poverty which would be regressive.

It is interesting that Fianna Fáil has not tabled a single amendment to this Bill but it is not surprising given that the genesis of the water charges comes from that party.