Paul Bradford (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I concur with Senator Cáit Keane. In selling this new concept to members of the public, we must try to portray the benefits of water conservation and quality, improvements in economic activity and the need to secure a long-term asset for the country. Domestic consumers and householders must also see benefits. Senator Keane has outlined some useful proposals in that regard. Given the numbers in the House, the passing of the Bill is a fait accompli. I hope, however, that there is still room for manoeuvre in terms of new thinking on positive improvements to the legislation. Encouraging people to harvest water must not only be considered good economically or environmentally but must have some benefit for householders. For this reason, Senator Keane's suggestion should be taken on board.

Section 17 makes provision for the setting of charges and the methods for calculating and paying such charges. I ask the Minister of State to discuss with his officials and Irish Water the system of billing, including the notification of bills to consumers. I do so because among the limited number of people who currently pay water charges under a metering system, Members encounter cases of financial horror at local level where people suddenly realise, on receiving a large bill, that there is a leak in the system. Instead of paying perhaps hundreds of euro per annum, as is normal, their bill could amount to between €3,000 and €5,000. Local authorities have adopted a reasonable approach to dealing with such persons and will attempt to arrive at a fair solution on a once-off basis. If a leak occurs a second or third time, they will consider the problem to be one for the consumer.

If people form a habit of frequently checking their water meter, as they may do with an ESB or gas meter, and calculate how their bills will add up, it prevents bills going through the roof - please excuse the pun - as a result of leaks remaining undetected. We must encourage a billing system under which regular communications are made between Irish Water and consumers. A leak can be addressed without major financial losses if it is dealt with within one or two months. However, if a person pays a bill, a leak occurs shortly thereafter and the subsequent bill is not issued or the meter is not checked for almost a year, the consumer will argue that he or she was not aware of the leak, whereas the company will argue the matter is the responsibility of the consumer.

Whether the annual water charge to households will be €400, €500 or €600, the amount will be significant. If Irish Water communicates with customers two or three times per annum and obliges the householder to fill out a simple check list and return it by post, financial disaster could be avoided for many consumers as leaks would be detected through an out-of-kilter meter reading. They could then be dealt with at an early stage. While the Minister may not be able to write such a requirement into the legislation, he should encourage Irish Water to have ongoing written, text or e-mail communications with consumers, rather than engaging them with only once per annum. I have encountered too many cases, primarily in the area of agriculture, where people who have paid water charges for ten or 15 years without a problem suddenly receive large bills because a leak was not detected for 12 months. The Minister has an opportunity to place an onus on Irish Water to engage with consumers more than once per annum. The cost of a stamp, a text message or an e-mail could avoid major difficulties for consumers and the company. A stitch in time saves nine, while a timely check of a water meter could avoid significant waste and high bills.