Mark Daly (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

Again, to Government Members the surcharge of €30 or €60, depending on whether it is one or several occupants in the house, might appear to be a small amount of money. In the event people do not pay and with the new section on the prohibition of the reduction of supply, Senator Barrett will agree that sections 4 and 6 would go against the laws of economics. On the one hand, one cannot turn off the supply so there are no consequences if one does not pay for it. I am not as knowledgeable as Senator Barrett when it comes to the laws of economics but maybe he will enlighten us as to whether, like the Government’s policy on Irish Water, this not only defies the laws of economics but the laws of rational thinking.

I am, of course, opposed to the section. Has the Government done a regulatory impact assessment on this section, coupled with section 6? What is the likelihood of people not paying? The Minister referred to the law of unintended consequences with regard to the plebiscite and the demand for a constitutional amendment. Yesterday, we were informed that only 8% of civil servants in the Department of Finance are actual economists. Surely, someone in the Department has looked at this section, coupled with the provision that supplies will not be turned off. Surely, a regulatory impact assessment has been carried out as was stated in the programme for Government for all future policies and legislation. To date, only one assessment has been carried out by the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, which introduces a whole new level of comedy when one thinks it is meant to be the lead Department in this regard. Has any economist looked at section 5 and the fact water supply will not be turned off? I will venture a guess that-----