asked the Taoiseach why, in his reply to parliamentary question No. 11 of 21 October 1980 under the heading "housing" he had shown a 100 per cent reduction in rates and water charges between mid-May 1977 and mid-August 1980, although water charges, while still being collected in all cases, have been substantially increased in that period.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Consumer Price Index.
5.
In the present consumer price index representative price indicators are used for each item included in the index. The individual price indicators are weighted by their share in consumer expenditure to give a composite index.
The price indicator specified for the item "rates and water charges of owner occupied dwellings" referred to by the Deputy was obtained by combining the changes in the rate poundage struck by all local authorities in the country. When domestic rates were abolished in 1978, it followed that there was a 100 per cent reduction in the relevant price indicator as I indicated in my reply to the parliamentary question of 21 October 1980.
As charges for public water supplies to the majority of householders in the country located in urban local authority areas were incorporated in domestic rates, a separate price indicator was not considered necessary for domestic water charges levied separate from rates for householders in other areas when the present consumer price index was introduced. In fact, it is estimated that the level of these separate water charges in 1977 would have to be more than quadrupled to increase the consumer price index by even one-tenth of 1 per cent, a negligible increase.
Would the Minister not agree that it is most remarkable that the Taoiseach's office should issue a document which says that there has been a 100 per cent reduction in rates and water charges when, in fact, everything was going up, throughout this country? Dublin is not Ireland, as the Minister seems to think.
I do not.
The water charges for most local authorities have been increased by between 300 and 600 per cent. Is the Minister telling the House and me that since water rents were being collected along with rates in certain areas and are not now collectable, water rates, as such, should be completely abolished? Is the Minister saying that there was the intention when this was done, because that would appear to be logical?
As indicated in my answer, even if the change which the Deputy is suggesting were made, it would increase the consumer price index by only one-tenth of 1 per cent.
What the Minister is saying is that because the amount which is involved—
Would the Deputy please ask a question?
I propose to ask a question. What the Minister is saying is that because it is small it is not necessary to show it in the returns given by the Taoiseach. In fact, although there have been tremendous increases amounting to hundreds of thousands of pounds throughout this country in water rents to people who can ill afford to pay them, the Minister says it is insignificant and does not need to be mentioned. Will he answer my first question, which is, will the people who are being charged water rents, illegally according to the reply received here, now get a refund?
I could not make any guarantee. I would, however, point out to the Deputy that the Government, in abolishing rates, have brought tremendous benefits to people. The Deputy's point is only a very small one in the whole matter.
A final supplementary question, please, Deputy Tully.
Is the Minister aware that his Government did not abolish the rates, that, in fact, the Coalition Government were the people to abolish rates?
I am quite willing to have a public debate on that.
Question No. 6.
Could I ask a brief supplementary question, please? Is the Minister not aware that there is a very considerable population living outside the city who are in a position to know very well that the water rates have not been abolished?