David Cullinane (Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I apologise for not being in the House earlier. I was attending the Government's stage managed event in Dublin Castle. I am responding to the Minister of State's response to the previous contributions. With respect, I do not think that this can be seen by either Irish Water or the Government as a good start. She is trying to make comparisons with previous utilities set up where previous charges were put in place to compare the compliance rate. Irish Water has been up and running for some time. The Government said continuously that the majority of people would register and pay. There is one element on which I wish to focus because the amendment seeks to delete section 47 which essentially would remove, as would the deletion of section 48, any reference to Irish Water or the ability of the State to collect unpaid water charges. We believe all of this should be done through separate legislation.

I listened to the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Paschal Donohoe, earlier in the week on one of the national radio stations when questioned about the payment being made to citizens in respect of the water conservation grant. We had lengthy debates here when the previous Water Services Bill was before the House. What appears to be happening is that every time we raise issues and concerns they are dismissed by the Government and then they come back and bite all of us, not only the Government but citizens also. In all the previous debates, we had concerns about setting up Irish Water and whether the cost associated with it was good use of taxpayers' money. As it transpired we had all those difficulties and the crisis about the waste of taxpayers' money in terms of the original set up costs.

We also raised concerns about the water conservation grant. We told the Minister at the time that this was not a conservation grant. There is no point in dressing this up as something that it is not. It is not a conservation grant and yet large numbers of people will receive that conservation grant without even having to pay the water charges in the first place which means that Irish Water, because the majority of citizens will not pay, will operate at a loss. How can the Minister of State stand over that? How can the Government say it is a good start and that we are on the right road when the majority of citizens have not paid? Some of those who have registered and have not paid will actually make a net gain, they will get a grant from the Government with no obligation to do anything. There is no obligation to prove that one has conserved water or that one has used the money for water conservation improvements, one just gets it back as a social welfare payment. In reality the only reason the water conservation grant was introduced was to placate the opposition to water charges. The Minister thought it was a way of getting the Government off the hook, that everybody would be happy with the lower charge and the water conservation grant and would all register and pay but it has not worked out. That is the reality.

I support the proposal to oppose sections 47 and 48. As this is my first opportunity to speak, I want to voice my overall opposition. I am not coming back in again as it is frustrating on Committee Stage when there is repetition but I have made my contribution. I genuinely believe - I said this on Second Stage - it is a major mistake for the Government to put these sections into a Bill which is essentially about something else. We will not have a proper debate on the other important issues in the Bill because the focus is on the provisions which relate to water charges in Irish Water. A disservice has been done to the House and the Oireachtas by the sleight of hand in which the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Alan Kelly, was engaged in when putting together this Bill.I am always wary when I see miscellaneous provisions Bills but this one really takes the biscuit. I strongly oppose this section and the next section.