Noel Dempsey
Question:1 Mr. Dempsey asked the Minister for the Environment his policy in relation to the payment of water charges.[2337/95]
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Local Authority Charges.
Michael P. Kitt
Question:17 Mr. M. Kitt asked the Minister for the Environment the estimated shortfall in revenue which would arise from the abolition of service charges. [1459/95]
Chris Flood
Question:39 Mr. Flood asked the Minister for the Environment his policy in relation to the payment and non-payment of water charges. [1810/95]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1, 17 and 39 together.
The law allows each local authority to decide, at its discretion, whether to levy charges for services and to determine the scale of such charges and the method and timing of their collection. Most local authorities now charge for either a water supply, refuse collection or sewerage service or a combination of these and, in the process, collected approximately £50 million in 1994. I am at present examining, in line with the commitment in the programme A Government of Renewal, the powers of local authorities to disconnect domestic water supplies for non-payment of service charges and will communicate with local authorities on this matter in the near future.
The policy agreement, A Government of Renewal, also recognises that there are feelings of inequity about services charges and provides for the introduction of a special tax allowance for those who can show that they have paid their service charges on time. Implementation of this element of the programme is a matter for the Minister for Finance.
I take this opportunity, with the indulgence of the Chair, to congratulate Deputy Dempsey on his appointment as spokesperson for the Environment. Although our respective roles changed in recent weeks I trust we will have an interesting dialogue across the House on various matters.
I beg the indulgence of the Chair to congratulate Deputy Howlin on his appointment as Minister. We had a good working relationship in Government and I look forward to continuing that in a different role.
I should try not to leave myself exposed.
Close the windows.
I thank the Minister for his reply. However, will he accept that the direction to local authorities and the vague commitment in the programme for Government effectively give carte blanche to those who default on payment of water charges? Does he accept it is most unfair to give an amnesty to people who do not meet their legal obligations? This vague commitment in the Government programme means that law abiding citizens will withhold water charges until they find out what is going on which will cause problems for local authorities.
I share the Deputy's concern that the income base of local authorities is maintained. Last year local authorities collected £50 million and no doubt a similar sum will be required to maintain the level of services. As far as the Government is concerned, all due debts are collectable and the amounts owing to local authorities will be properly pursued by them. Two areas are inequitous, one is double taxation and the other is that some local authorities resort to disconnection without exhausting the other possibilities. The Minister for Finance will address the first issue and I will address the second when I set out to local authorities the Government's views on delimiting powers and exhausting other options before disconnection can take place.
In my local authority the amount collected in water charges is down by 50 per cent on the same period last year. Will the Minister compensate local authorities for the loss of income that will result from this policy? Over £23 million is outstanding in water charges although many people are under the impression that they have been abolished. Will the Minister define "delimit"? If it means that several warnings must be given and local authorities must take people to court rather than resort to disconnection, which they only use in extreme cases, it will impose further costs on local authorities.
It is entirely within the powers of local authorities to decide the level of charges, if any, to impose. Charges for refuse collection, water and so on are collectable and the local authority will be expected to collect them. There is no question of any funds being made available to cover shortfalls because of non-collection. There is a range of options open to local authorities to pursue due debts including, in the final analysis, disconnection in cases where there is no hardship, where the waiver system has been looked at and proper notice served on the householder. The Government will delimit their power to ensure that water supply is not cut off as a quick reaction but, where somebody has the capacity to pay and refuses to do so, the ability to disconnect water supply will remain with the local authority.
If the only way these debts can be collected is through debt collectors, will we become a sheriff rid-den society?
The Deputy did not listen to what I said. I said there was a range of options open to them, including in the final analysis disconnection of the service when all other options have been exhausted. The two contentious issues I mentioned are being addressed. The argument for non-payment of charges on the grounds of double taxation will evaporate when the Minister for Finance brings in a tax allowance.
It will not do any such thing.
Only Deputies who table Priority Questions may intervene.
It is a misleading statement.
I am sure the Deputy heard the Chair.