Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 27 Oct 1994

Vol. 446 No. 5

Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - Service Charges.

Liz McManus

Question:

5 Ms McManus asked the Minister for the Environment the plans, if any, he has for the abolition of service charges in view of the reported comments of the Minister of State at his Department to the effect that he wished to see a fairer system and that local charges were a poorly thought out form of local taxation; the guidelines, if any, his Department has issued to local authorities regarding the treatment of those who are unable or fail to make payments; if he will amend any such guidelines to halt the disconnections of water supply to defaulters in view of the health and social implications of such disconnections; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2406/94]

Mary Harney

Question:

51 Miss Harney asked the Minister for the Environment if he has received a copy of the report completed by the Labour Party Review Group on local service charges; if he intends to abolish these charges; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2334/94]

Peadar Clohessy

Question:

58 Mr. Clohessy asked the Minister for the Environment if he has received a copy of the report completed by the Labour Party Review Group on local service charges; if he intends to abolish these charges; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2333/94]

Seán Barrett

Question:

61 Mr. Barrett asked the Minister for the Environment if he intends abolishing water charges; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2293/94]

I propose to take Questions Nos. 5, 51, 58 and 61 together.

It is within the absolute discretion of each local authority to decide whether charges for services are to be levied in its area, and the scale of any such charges. I have no function in the exercise of that discretion. I have no doubt, however, that the elected members, in considering the matter, have due regard to the needs of their areas, the level and range of services to be provided and their cost, and all of the sources of revenue, including charges, available to finance those services.

Almost all local authorities currently charge for domestic services and have done so in successive years in order to maintain and improve the level of local services. Collection levels are improving and it is expected that local authorities will achieve their collection targets which total £50 million in the current year. I have no proposals to remove or limit local discretion in the levying of charges. I have not received a copy of the report referred to.

All local authorities levying domestic service charges operate schemes to reduce or waive charges for householders whose incomes are low or who are experiencing particular hardship. I am satisfied that the operation of local waiver schemes broadly complies with guidelines issued by my Department in 1985 on this matter. I have no proposals to issue revised guidelines.

It is not open to me, nor do I consider any action by me is warranted, to prevent local authorities from taking such action as may be open to them under the law to secure collection of charges. I am satisfied that disconnection generally arises only after other methods have proved unsuccessful and in face of persistent refusal to pay by householders who are believed by the authority concerned to be neither suffering financial hardship nor eligible for a waiver.

It is quite extraordinary for the Minister to claim he has no role in the area of service charges when clearly that is not the case. How does he think he can convince the ordinary, hard pressed householder of the legitimacy of the service charges when he cannot convince his Minister of State of their legitimacy? If he has not seen the reported statements — which I find difficult to believe — perhaps I might jog his memory. The Minister of State said fairly recently that these were an unfair and inequitable form of taxation which varies from one area to another and takes no account of ability to pay.

No quotations at Question Time, please.

The Minister said he had not seen what he seemed to think was a report but were reported comments.

I have seen the reported comments but not the report.

The reported comments of his Minister of State shows he is clearly not convinced of the legitimacy of these service charges. The Minister must be aware that householders, depending on their geographic location, pay varying charges. For example, in Mayo the charge is in excess of £205 and in parts of Dublin it is approximately £70. Coming from a party which in the relatively recent past won council seats on the basis that it would abolish these charges does he not accept that these are unfair and inequitable? Is he aware that in Scotland for example, it is illegal for a local authority to cut off water supply to houses? Does he not recognise and understand that if a sanitary authority cuts off water supplies to individual households it creates an unacceptable health hazard? Will he bring in legislation to deal with this?

I am sure the Minister of State is very conscious of the deeply felt concern for his welfare which the Deputy expressed.

Answer the question and do not be so smart.

I am aware of Minister Stagg's views but he started publicly that if these charges were abolished the funds raised at present through service changes would have to be raised elsewhere. The public should know the facts. Service charges at present raise about £50 million. The cost of maintaining public water supply and waste treatment systems for a year is £136 million. Therefore, the service charges represent a little over 30 per cent of the maintenance cost without any regard for the capital cost. Abolishing service charges would mean introducing alternative taxes and Deputy McManus should say exactly what is intended in that context.

I will, when I am Minister for the Environment.

I could then evaluate what is said. It is often argued that this is double taxation. However, when these charges were introduced we had a high level of personal taxation at 58 per cent, a middle rate of 48 per cent and a marginal rate of 35 per cent.

This is ridiculous. Questions are not answered and the Minister makes a speech.

Quite a number of questions were put to me.

There is no control over Ministers' replies and there never has been.

The Minister makes a speech every time he stands up. This is Question Time.

I thought that the Deputy's party, which at one time subscribed to not allowing free speech, would at least adopt a new approach in the modern world. There is no question of additional taxation.

I cannot get my question answered——

Everyone knows why the question was not answered.

——because the Minister spends ten minutes answering every question.

I wonder if I could proceed because a lot of time has been wasted with interruptions. In regard to what the local authority may do in given circumstances where it is satisfied that a person or persons would not suffer undue hardship in meeting service charges, time and again I have been told in this House to keep my hands off local authorities, to let local authorities decide, to let the elected members decide. That is the true form of local democracy. However, in this case I have been asked to intervene in circumstances where I believe local authorities carry out their duties and functions, through their representatives, in a fair and equitable way.

We spent 15 minutes on this question.

Why is there no time limit on responses from that side of the House? We have to be succinct and precise in our questions——

We get about 30 seconds.

——but there is absolute licence when it comes to waffle from the other side of the Chamber.

The questions require comprehensive answers.

The Minister bluffs to avoid answering the other questions.

When the Minister says that public representatives determine when people's water supply is cut off, he is talking about the policies devised by public representatives at local level. The suggestion that people's water supply is only cut off when all other avenues are exhausted is not true. Computer printouts are automatically sent to householders telling them that if they do not pay the water will be cut off. In many cases that happens and it is wrong. Will the Minister not understand and accept that there are public health implications, that women with children find there is no water in the house, with serious sanitary implications, that he has a responsibility to ensure that basic essential services are maintained and that other means are used if it comes to the collection of money.

I would be very happy to investigate any case the Deputy brings before me where a local authority would, in the first instance, propose to cut off a water supply without having taken the normal action expected of the council. I will investigate any case where the council has taken that action as a first resort.

Will the Minister comment on this report of the Minister of State that water rates will be abolished——

Let us have no demonstrations.

——it is just to show it is real.

Demonstrations of that kind are not in order.

I am sorry, a Cheann Comhairle. I thought it would help matters lest there would be any doubts. Can the public be given an assurance from the Minister that water charges will be abolished because, as a result of the comments from the Minister of State, people are not paying them in the Dublin area, particularly in the new council areas where they were first introduced this year.

Also in the Cork area.

Does the Minister not realise that if a Minister of State in his Department goes public saying that water charges will be abolished the people accept that as being accurate. The Minister now tells us that what the Minister of State said is rubbish. Will the Minister clarify whether water charges are being abolished so that local authorities can do something else to deal with the shortfall in revenue that now arises as a result of such utterances from the Minister of State?

I am aware of Minister Stagg's views on this matter. He has not said that water charges will be abolished. By law service charges are at the discretion of local authorities, and I will not intervene in the matter.

Is Minister Stagg not a member of Government?

In view of the Minister's claim that he will not intervene in the matter, is it not the case that he changed the rules of capital allocations to local authorities and, specifically in the case of Dublin City which does not have local charges, he now proposes that, instead of investing in capital needs in their waterworks system, as was the norm, he will bring in private capital to fund those investments, which means he is forcing that local authority to introduce water charges?

That is not the case. The Deputy will be aware that a massive injection of capital funds is required to upgrade the water facilities for the city and county of Dublin. A considerable part of that work will relate to conservation of existing water supplies. Unfortunately, we have not developed policies and methods in that regard nor have we contractors experienced in water conservation policies. We have engaged outside consultancies to help us to devise policies which have been quite successful in other countries. In other words, we will not be engaged in massive capital injection for building new reservoirs of water supplies when there is an extraordinary loss through existing systems. That has nothing to do with the introduction of water charges in Dublin but with an analysis of problems and the best means of solving them by conserving water supplies, instead of draining finite resources.

The Minister is privatising the water supply.

Is the Deputy not in favour of that?

No. The Minister of State got a sudden rush of blood to the head and has thrown all his principles out the door.

Let there be no interruptions from either side of the House.

Is it the case that, as a result of the Joint Programme for Government, the Labour Party set up a study group to come up with a set of recommendations as to what is to be done in terms of the retention or abolition of water charges? If that is the case when will the report be published? Will it be published before the next election? Will the Minister accept that householders in my area who had been paying service charges discontinued that practice on the understanding that one of the parties in Government, perhaps the Labour Party, would introduce a scheme to abolish those charges? As a result of being so misled, some householders in my constituency have had to go to Cork courthouse in recent weeks.

The Deputy's question is tending towards debate which is not in order now.

Will the Minister accept that view is one of the by-products of the confusion that persists? Will he agree that local authorities which have continued to collect water charges are being penalised? I drew his attention to the fact that the amount of the rate support grant for Cork Corporation has been halved in less than ten years.

That should be adequate, Deputy Quill.

Are local authorities being penalised because they continue to collect service charges?

With due respect, the Deputy has asked about six questions and, according to Deputy Barrett's rules, I am supposed to deal with them in one minute. I want to set the record straight in case people in Cork are confused. From my experience of dealing with Cork people they are not easily confused.

I said misled.

Service charges are integral to the financing of local authorities. They raised £50 million nationally. Their imposition is a function of local authorities and charges are imposed at their discretion. They remain part of the law of the land and the Government is not in a position to say the situation will be different for some time.

That is a joke.

Regarding the Labour Party's discussions, internal matters within individual parties are a separate issue. Each party holds its identity in a partnership Government. Work on policy is an internal matter and I have not seen or had access to the report to which Deputy Quill referred.

So the pact is off?

According to Councillor McGinley it is Fianna Fáil policy to abolish water charges.

I would like the public to be told the truth about the suggestion that the rate support grant for Cork has been halved in the past few years. Deputy Quill will be aware that in the intervening time changes have been made in respect of arterial drainage, supplementary welfare, vocational education committee pensions and direct payment of rates by the ESB. Those changes have had the effect of either substantially increasing the resources payable to local authorities or removing a requirement which prior to then they had to pay.

The Minister is confusing the issue.

I reject the comparison made by Deputy Quill. It is unfair and totally false.

I referred to figures given by the Minister's Department.

That is not the way to deal with parliamentary business.

Is it the Minister's policy that if he cannot convince them he will confuse them?

Will the Minister agree that his assertion that he does not have a role in respect of the service charges is similar to claims that parents who do not feed their children are not guilty of murder when those children die? I find it difficult to believe that he does not have a role in respect of service charges. Does he accept that service charges are inequitable in that they do not take account of ability to pay, and because of the lack of metering do not result in water conservation, that they are counterproductive and encourage wastage and abuse of services and do nothing to engender local pride and self-reliance?

I reiterate the imposition of local service charges is the function of local authorities.

Local authorities have discretion to decide on service charges. Local members make decisions in respect of those charges at estimate meetings which I do not attend. There is no point in Deputies making the case that I am responsible for imposing or making other decisions in respect of service charges. That is not true.

Will the Minister abolish them?

Deputy Sargent understands the law as well as I do. Responsibility falls to me only if a local authority does not bring in an estimate to cover the expense of maintaining services. Since that power was put in place in 1940 it has had to be exercised in respect of only four of the 1,600 decisions. I would hope that power would not have to be used, but it is only used when local authorities fail to reach an estimate.

It is a big stick.

I reject the contention that the abolition of service charges would conserve water supplies.

I did not say that.

I am surprised the Deputy's party is adopting that policy.

The Minister was not correct when he said he did not have a function in respect of those charges. He must accept that service charges are taken into account when he makes a block grant to local authorities.

That has a bearing on local authorities. While local authorities in Dublin may have introduced service charges others that have not done so have not been penalised by a reduction in their block grant. It would be helpful to householders if an instalment system for service charges were introduced. Because of the contradictory statements made by the Minister's Department local authorities are experiencing great difficulty in finalising the collection of those charges as people are of the view they will be abolished. Will the Minister once and for all clarify for the public whether he will abolish those charges?

I did not hear the Deputy ask a specific question in relation to the matter before us.

I repeat for the third time that the Government does not intend to change the law of the land in respect of service charges. It is up to the local authorities to decide if they will introduce them.

So the Minister is not going to abolish them.

Deputy Boylan should be aware that an instalment system for the payment of service charges has been in place for years. I am happy that Fine Gael's policy on service charges is that there should be significant reductions in the block grant to local authorities which are not imposing those charges.

We have devoted a good deal of time to this question. I am proceeding to another question.

It was the Minister who said that.

I wish to ask a brief question.

I am sure the Deputy knows the respect she should show to the Chair when it is on its feet.

The Minister said it was a matter for local authorities to decide to improve service charges. If he allocated a sum of money and commercial rates only produce a certain amount of money the shortfall will have to be made up. Will the Minister agree that because he has not allocated sufficient funds to local authorities, they are being obliged and forced by the Minister and his Department to introduce water charges? I put it to him that it is not a matter for the local authority but for him. Did the Minister threaten to abolish three new local authorities in Dublin if they did not introduce water charges?

I did not.

What I did was——

The Minister sent that message out through Fianna Fáil councillors.

This matter is becoming rather personal and I do not like the tenor of the discussion.

I did not interrupt the Deputy when he was asking the question. Because the Deputy and a number of his colleagues on a particular council failed to bring in a viable estimate, the problem came back into my hands. This question does not appear on today's Order Paper, but I was surprised the Deputy made specific proposals to cut the estimate by a further £1 million to avoid service charges, which would have had a disastrous effect on the improvement of roads in his constituency. I had to tell the local authority to bring in a viable estimate. Local authorities have a certain time to bring in a viable estimate and I only become involved when they fail to do so.

I am calling Deputy Quill for a very brief and relevant question devoid of statements.

Will the Minister put on record that in respect of policy on service charges both parties in Government are on the one word?

As the Deputy knows, I have tried to get the Progressive Democrats on the one word so that Limerick will not lose out on the basis of what that party proposes for Cork. In this instance the Deputy can be quite sure the Government's position is firm, resolute, determined and disciplined, and that is the way it will remain.

Smart alec comments will get the Minister nowhere.

Since the Minister of State is in the House will he give his wholehearted support for the Minister's policy on the maintenance of service charges?

Collective responsibility in the Department of the Environment rests with the trio present, a formidable team which is likely to be there for a long time.

Top
Share