David Cullinane (Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

We engaged in a lengthy debate on charges and we have just discussed an amendment designed to include an ability-to-pay clause in the Bill. It is disappointing that the Government voted down that amendment, which was an attempt by those of us who oppose the charges in the first instance to try to bring some element of fairness to the process. People have different views as to whether water charges are justified, particularly in the current economic climate. As I informed the Minister of State previously, they have already been hit with a raft of other charges and cuts by this Government and that which preceded it. The very least anyone would have sought would be for the Government to protect families on the lowest incomes and ensure an element of progressiveness in respect of the charge in order that high-income families will not end up paying the same amount as their low-income counterparts.

We are going down a very dangerous road in the context of the charges being introduced by the Government. I accept that we discussed this matter earlier in our deliberations but I reiterate that the same thing happened in respect of the household charge. That charge - or the property tax, as it is now known - is neither fair nor progressive and it is not linked to people's ability to pay. It is a case of "Here we go again" in respect of water charges. More families are going to be obliged to live in poverty if we continue to move away from progressive taxes by means of which people can be taxed directly on their income and towards a situation whereby an increasing number of indirect, unfair and regressive taxes will be introduced. When the Ministers for Finance, Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation or the Environment, Community and Local Government or the Minister of State currently before the House seek to sell these types of taxes and charges, they state that they are necessary because of the need to bring in more revenue.

They also state that what we do not want to do is tax jobs because taxing income is taxing jobs.

If new charges are imposed, the money comes out of people's pockets in their wages through direct taxes or through indirect charges. That is the reality. Rather than moving to increase taxes for the wealthy and the top earners in our society, the Minister of State has moved to bring in these regressive charges which are not fair. I have no doubt that as people learn more about what is being proposed in respect of water charges they will be very angry about it. I imagine over the course of the next few days the Government will make a great deal of our coming out of the bailout programme and the improved economic situation as its members see it, but there are many families who will not be celebrating with the Minister of State and who will not be looking forward to the prospect of water charges coming on top of all of the other charges that have been foisted upon them during the past few years. They will be even angrier again when they find out that there is no level of progressiveness to it in that there is no ability to pay element to it. Any attempt by the Opposition to introduce an ability to pay element to the charge was knocked back. Essentially, that is the core argument I have with the Minister of State and the Government's approach to this issue. It is a bit like all of the other charges the Government has brought it. The Minister of State just wants us to buy a pig in a poke. He will not tell us exactly or give any indication as to how this will work out, how much it will cost, how it will be calculated or how low-income families will be protected.

Deputy Fergus O'Dowd:That is not true.