Brian Ó Domhnaill (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I agree with the last comments of Senator Craughwell. They are well made and well-founded. We talk about being able to fund infrastructural investment off balance sheet. However, ultimately someone has to pay for it. Just because it is off balance sheet does not mean that someone out in Europe is going to pay for it. The customer is going to be fleeced to pay for it or it will be paid for through general taxation. Just because the Minister is setting up this quango called Irish Water does not mean that there is a fairy tree under the rainbow that will pay for it. The money has to come from somewhere. It will come from the people who will have to pay the bill and through general taxation. In the meantime, however, we are going to fund this semi-State organisation which is going to gain unprecedented powers, and the individuals working within this organisation are going to have very cosy numbers on 12-year contracts. It is only a financial moving exercise, so the Minister can charge people. That is all that is involved here.

However, sticking to the section we are speaking to - I apologise for straying - I have one or two questions for the Minister. On the late payment charge, I agree there will be two elements here, possibly more. There will be the people who genuinely cannot afford to pay and there will be the people who will not pay. However, what will happen is the people who genuinely cannot afford to pay are going to get caught. The people who can afford to pay will eventually pay and they will pay the €60 or €30 extra because they will see that the accumulation of that over time would not be economically viable for them. They will just pay it. The poor people who genuinely cannot afford to pay it are going to be caught by this trap. It is the people who should be supported who will be caught. Income support is made available for low-income households in the policies that are in place in 30 OECD countries. It is not provided for in this Bill. The ability to pay principle, for those who genuinely cannot afford to pay, is nowhere to be seen in this legislation. Those people are going to be screwed by this legislation.

This section, and the Bill itself, flies in the face of the principle of conservation. The Minister speaks of a conservation grant. It is a flat rate grant. It has nothing to do with conservation. It is a flat rate across the board, irrespective of whether one conserves water or not. There are elements to it which I feel have not been thought out and which have not stood up to scrutiny. Senator Leyden made the point that the Minister should go back and give a period of space. No one is going to criticise a Minister for doing that. It would be a very plausible thing for any Minister or Government to do. If we are genuine about doing politics in a new way and looking at how we fund our country in a new way, we should be open to these sorts of things. It should not be a case of the politics of the past continuing into the present.

I have one additional question about the figures used by the Minister's Department. According to its 2014 figures, there are 1.35 million dwellings in the country. However, according to the latest census figures, there is 1.65 million dwellings. I heard an interview with the Minister during which he said the figure was the assumed number of those who would register. Are we assuming that 300,000 households will not register? Will they be caught under this section? Will the Minister provide some clarification on this?