David Cullinane (Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I have no doubt that when water charges are introduced, all the Members opposite will be whistling a different tune when they are talking to people on the doorsteps.

To return to the points the Minister made, he said this Bill is about a substantial level of investment in our water services. We have seen a cut every year for the past number of years in water services in this State. There has not been any substantial level of investment. I do not see how any of that will amount to new investment in water services.

The Minister also spoke about a modern and more efficient system of water services yet the city manager of Dublin has said it could damage the council's ability to respond to severe weather events and was likely to cause very significant financial and operational risks to the city council. Those are his words, not mine. I am merely repeating for the Minister what one of the senior civil servants and the city manager of Dublin city said. How can the Minister square his view that he is creating a modern system of water provision in this State that will be better for users, and that it is about conservation, when he was dismissive yesterday of many of the arguments we put forward on grant aid for some people? I used the word "arrogant" yesterday in my contribution, which I withdraw. It was said in the heat of the debate, which I regret, but I believe the Minister was dismissive of the genuine arguments we were putting forward on making grant aid available to people to ensure they can properly conserve water. If the Minister was genuinely interested in conservation he would agree to such measures. When he dismissed those arguments and did not accept those amendments, that tells me this is not about conservation but simply about raising revenue.

The Minister also spoke about unaccounted for water. The only way we can deal with unaccounted for water is if we upgrade the system and have significant capital investment in it.

Rather than putting a till on the taps of householders or cash registers outside their doors and spending money on water meters, it would have been much better had the Government used that money to fix the system, which is the point of this amendment.

The Minister of State discussed how water charges would improve the economy. How in God's name can another regressive tax and bill for householders that will disproportionately impact on low income families do that? Let there be no doubt, the very wealthy will be able to invest in all of the technologies we discussed yesterday and will have smaller water bills to pay than low income families who will not be in a position to do likewise. Senators on the other side can yawn, snigger and laugh all they like, but I represent those people on low pay who will find it very difficult to-----