Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 27 Jun 1995

Vol. 455 No. 1

Private Members' Business. - Local Government (Delimination of Water Supply Disconnection Powers) Bill, 1995: Second Stage.

Minister for the Environment (Mr. Howlin)

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time". Some years after the derating of domestic and certain other premises, local authorities were given wider powers in the Local Government (Financial Provisions) (No. 2) Act, 1983, to charge for services they provide. Members of the House who have served in local government will recognise and accept that this enhancement of local discretion and increased financial independence is important in the local government context. While the issue of service charges has been a difficult and contentious one in some areas, they are an important source of income for local authorities so much so that in the region of £50 million was collected in domestic charges in 1994, when Deputy Smith was charged with responsibility for the Department of the Environment.

The policy agreement A Government of Renewal contains three commitments which have a direct bearing on service charges: first, it gave an undertaking to commission a professional study of local government funding "to see whether a fair, equitable and reasonable system of funding can be introduced with a view to publishing a White Paper on the subject". I am pleased to inform the House that earlier today I announced the appointment of a consultant to carry out this important study. All relevant aspects of local government funding, including service charges, will be considered as part of this study.

Second, in recognising that service charges are seen by some as a form of double taxation, the Government gave a commitment to introduce a tax allowance at the standard rate, up to a maximum of £150, for those who can show that they paid their service charges on time. The statutory provision is in section 7 of this year's Finance Act.

Third, we undertook to amend the Sanitary Services Act, 1962, to delimit the power of local authorities to disconnect domestic water supplies for nonpayment of water charges. This Bill will give effect to this commitment.

It is at the discretion of each local authority to decide whether to levy charges and to set the level of such charges. It is also a matter for each local authority to arrange for their collection. Where a person defaults on payment of a water charge, two options are open to local authorities under the Local Government (Sanitary Services) Act, 1962; they can either pursue the outstanding charge as a simple contract debt through the courts or they can discontinue the supply of water if a charge is not paid within two months after it becomes due.

Some local authorities have succeeded in recovering outstanding charges through the courts; others have found that this can often be a long drawn out, unsatisfactory and costly process. In many circumstances, local authorities consider disconnection to be a more realistic and effective option. There is no doubt that disconnection is a severe measure and one not implemented lightly by local authorities. It is, and should remain, a weapon of last resort, to be used only after an exhaustive process of pursuing outstanding debts and then only where there is ability to pay. In most cases, the first steps towards a disconnection are enough to prompt payment and it is only in a relatively limited number of cases that local authorities have had to disconnect supplies.

The legislation conferring on local authorities the power to disconnect for non-payment of water charges did not establish any procedural arrangements or controls in respect of the implementation of that power. Legally, therefore, local authorities have more or less a free hand as to how they use their disconnection powers. Disconnection policy, including procedures, may vary from local authority to local authority.

The introduction of this Bill should not, however, be interpreted as suggesting that local authorities have acted improperly or irresponsibly in the use of their disconnection power. Disconnection has not been used as a first line of attack or in an uncaring fashion by local authorities around the country. There is evidence that local authorities generally have adopted a responsible and sympathetic attitude in this matter.

Nevertheless, because of the severity of the sanction of discontinuing a water supply and the implications it can have, particularly for the very young and the elderly, there is a need to establish a clearly defined series of steps which must be followed prior to disconnection. That is why the Government gave a commitment to amend the Sanitary Services Act to delimit the powers of local authorities to disconnect domestic water supply and that is what this Bill will do.

Before looking briefly at the main provisions of the Bill, I should underline the fact that it relates only to domestic water supplies as opposed to water supplied for commercial, industrial, agricultural or other non-domestic purposes.

Section 3 and the Schedule contain the main limitations on the powers of local authorities — or more properly under sanitary services legislation, sanitary authorities — to discontinue domestic water supplies. Section 3 (2) provides that before an authority may disconnect a supply of water for nonpayment of water charges, it must first obtain an order from the District Court. Such an order may only be granted by the court where the following clearly defined procedures which are set out in the Schedule have been followed: first, a demand must have issued in writing; second, at least two reminders of outstanding charges must have issued; third, at least two warnings must have been given, either separately or in conjunction with the reminders, about possible court action leading to disconnection and, finally, the sanitary authority must have had delivered to the consumer, or sent by registered post, final notice to advise that it is intended to make an application to the court for an order authorising disconnection.

By circular letter of 4 April this year, I asked local authorities to implement these procedures pending the introduction of this Bill. In fairness to local authorities procedures more or less along these lines were already being followed in most cases. For the future, the Bill will establish standardised statute-backed procedures ensuring that people will be in no doubt as to where they stand in this matter.

An exception to the requirement to follow the specified procedures is provided in section 3 where a person defaults on an instalment order — that is a specified schedule of payments— which had been previously made by the courts where a local authority used the option of pursuing a charge as a contract debt through the courts.

I want to ensure that the power of disconnection remains to deal with cases where people who can afford to pay their water charges refuse to do so. It is important in terms of equity that everybody who is liable to pay, and who can afford to pay, does so. In this way the burden of paying for the provision and maintenance of much needed and demanded local services is fairly shared. If this does not happen, then complaint citizens will rightly question why they should continue to pay. The Bill does not offer any succour or consolation to the so-called conscientious objector who, by propounding some self-serving logic, leaves it to the rest of the community to foot the bill on his behalf, while at the same time enjoying, and more often than not vociferously demanding, all the benefits of local services and facilities that other people's money can buy. The power to disconnect remains and indeed will now have the backing of a court order. Where a court grants an order authorising discontinuance the consumer will, unless there are special and substantial reasons to warrant otherwise, be liable under section 4 for the costs and expenses of a local authority in its application for a water discontinuance order. Furthermore, where a supply is disconnected, the consumer will be responsible for meeting the costs, not only of having the supply reconnected, but also the costs incurred by a local authority in disconnecting the supply in the first place.

While the Bill does not make life easy for those with ample resources who refuse to pay. I am anxious that it should provide added protection for the less well-off, those who cannot afford to pay. Section 3 (3) gives that protection. Under this section, the court may not grant an order authorising disconnection in any case where the default in payment arose as a result of hardship. To ensure that disconnection will not put vulnerable people in a house at risk — for example where an individual's medical condition would be seriously threatened — the court is required under section 3 (4) to take account of the personal and household circumstances of the consumer when considering an application from a local authority to disconnect. As further protection for those who cannot afford to pay, section 3 (5) prohibits disconnection in any case where a local authority has granted a water charges waiver on the grounds of hardship. All in all, this is a well-balanced Bill. It is tough on those who will not pay and sympathetic to the needs of those whose cannot pay. That is as it should be in a caring society. The Bill strikes the right balance between, on the one hand, the necessarily strong powers of a local authority to ensure payment of water charges due to it, and an acceptable level of protection for individual consumers on the other. It constitutes a significant advance towards greater transparency on an issue of public importance. I look forward to a constructive debate on the Bill and I commend it to the House.

Mr. M. Smith

I welcome the Minister for the Environment and his officials to the House although they are the only complimentary remarks I will make. I am deputising for Deputy Dempsey who is unavoidably absent. I am more than surprised at the Minister's remarks. He said he had established another commission to study local authority funding with a view to introducing a White Paper. That is a compromise, a cop-out and a cover up. It is a compromise to Democratic Left because while the Minister is introducing a Bill to delimit the powers of local authorities to disconnect water supplies the olive branch is being held out to Democratic Left that some consultancy in the future will find a way to ignore the realities. I am surprised the Minister, with his tenacious capacity and obvious energy, succumbed to that pressure.

It is a cop-out because it is a delay. On foot of this study no fundamental changes will be introduced by the Government before the next general election. It is a neat cover up because it enables the Minister in introducing this Bill to put emphasis on the possibility of another way of funding local authorities. He is aware, as I am, that there are enough reports on local authority funding to fill every pothole from Wexford to Tipperary. The Bill has the hallmarks of a tension packed Government.

I said before, and I repeat, that the Minister is using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Between 500,000 and 600,000 homes pay service charges and as few as 900 homesteads, a fraction of 1 per cent, had their supplies cut off by local authorities. Therefore, there is great compliance by the public in facing up to the reality of paying for the services they enjoy. To devote so much time and energy to finding a way to alleviate the problems of Democratic Left leaves me wondering. There are people in difficult financial circumstances, and we introduce waiver schemes and encourage local authorities to be as generous as possible in those cases. I was glad to hear the Minister say:

Disconnection has not been used as a first line of attack, or in an uncaring fashion by local authorities around the country. Indeed there is evidence that local authorities generally have adopted a responsible and sympathetic attitude in this matter.

That has been the expression of everyone. There should be no pressure on people who cannot afford to pay.

P.J. Wodehouse once said — I do not remember the exact words — that the surest and safest way to get rid of dandruff is the guillotine. That is exactly the kind of policy being pursued in this case. As a former colleague of the Minister for the Environment I am shocked and surprised that he would clog up an already cluttered court with this nonsense, giving the notion that there is another way, there will be manna from heaven if we wait a little while.

This Bill has the hallmarks of a team that is already a shambles. Democratic Left is not walking on the tail of Fine Gael and Labour, or maybe it is and the dog is not even barking. This measure will be a bureaucratic nightmare for local authorities who are already stretched for cash and are now being tightened into a lúbán, strangling their already overstretched systems. It will clearly slow up the process of collecting service charges. It is pandering to a small minority of non-compliant people who do not want to pay. It will further underpin a dependency culture which, in a make-believe world, ferments the notion that someone else should or will pay. This is a serious retrograde step.

There is no evidence that local authorities are running amok. People, in some cases, those with substantial incomes, have waited months for registered letters or a call from a local authority official because a few puny cowardly politicians suggested that service charges could be abolished. My estimation of the Minister may have gone down but he has time to recover. At least he stood up to Democratic Left and did not abolish service charges. He went halfway up the ladder, but there is time for him to recover.

To get £100 from a person who has a piped water supply in their home the local authority will have to write to him six times. Much time will be spent by officials dictating letters and money will be spent on postage. To get that £100 we will have to pay £200 in fees for legal services in the courts under this system. It is an unnecessary additional administrative burden involving substantial legal costs.

In national terms, local authorities raise more than £50 million through service charges. The first thing that will happen as a result of the enactment of this legislation is that people will delay paying service charges on two fronts. The appointment of a new consultancy group to examine service charges and property tax provides hope that there will be a change and they can avoid the charges. By the time the local authorities have an opportunity to work out their system this year it will be October or November before they will be fully satisfied that a person will not pay and they will have to follow the procedure and go to court. This year will pass and perhaps as much as £15 million, owned to the local authorities already strapped of cash for services provided will not be paid.

Since 1983 this debate has been characterised by a lack of courage and blatant dishonesty. Everyone knows that local authorities are strapped for cash, that amends must be made to strengthen their resource base and that the provision of water and sewerage facilities is enormously expensive. Yet a political lifeline has been handed out by unsuspecting people to make-believe politicians propagating the view that those charges will be abolished and some kind of manna will be found. It is time to grow up. We are now in Opposition, but I was in Government and I know the public are fully aware of the realities. They know they enjoy good facilities and are happy to pay for them.

Statistics reveal that almost 65 per cent of the public are complaint. People following this debate tonight who pay service charges will ask themselves if they are fools. People, with resources who do not pay their service charges can receive six letters, a visit from a local authority official and in the process hold up and strangle the local authority system.

Regarding disconnection, I do not believe the Minister believes in the principle enunciated or was advised by his Department officials to pursue that line. He was caught in a web, trying to sort out his colleagues in Government. Even if he has an elastic conscience which up until now I did not believe he had, and believes in that principle, he has no course open to him other than to tell the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications that it should be a consistent Government policy that there should not be disconnections. What will the Minister say to Telecom Éireann? I forecast he will not indicate that it is the policy. What will he say to the ESB? Everybody knows they use that system.

In an ideal world we should not have such systems, everybody should pay. Other parties in the House talk about such a Utopian world, but members of Fianna Fáil are realists. We know there will be ups and downs along the way. Disconnection is not a problem as the threat of disconnection works. It is an administratively simple, quick and effective measure but I forecast that the Minister will not contact the ESB. The present system of disconnection will continue to be operated by Telecom Éireann and the ESB so where is the principle? The Minister for the Environment in previous ministries strongly advocated principle, but has a low profile on this. He cannot be consistent here. I was glad to note in some of the gobbledegook he gave us this evening he at least did not defend the principle in this legislation. He left himself a semblance of decency.

People living in rural areas in Cork, Wexford or Tipperary who wish to gain access to a water supply must employ a person efficient in well boring, buy an electric pump and pay between £1,000 and £3,000 capital costs for those services. People who do not have access to a public sewage treatment facility must dig a septic tank or use a pure flow Bord na Móna system which will cost between £1,000 and £3,000. People in rural areas without public schemes must find between £3,000 and £6,000 to get supplies and then they will be fully responsible for maintenance costs. The Minister has not said anything on their behalf tonight. They must pay without any State aid. They do not understand Democratic Left's argument on this issue.

I was pleased that grants for group water schemes were increased and I was successful in securing funds from Europe to develop those schemes. People lucky enough to have access to a group water scheme must set up a committee, get a group together, gather funds, draw up a contract and fund and manage the scheme with the help of grants. People around the country would not get access to such a water supply for less than £400 and must also bear the cost of annual maintenance.

Last year I received a letter from an old age pensioner in County Sligo. I was successful in securing £500,000 for the Castleconnell group water scheme which had been on the books for many years. When that woman received a letter of approval she told me she went to the credit union and borrowed £400 to pay her contribution to the scheme. She was happy and proud to do that. As a Minister, I would have dearly wished to have been able to tell her that she could have a free water supply and she would have loved to have heard the Minister say tonight that she would not have to pay a service charge. That lady suffered hardship but she showed some spunk. She stood up for her country and was not prepared to have a dependency culture for everything. It is often worth paying money for something one wants. That woman does not understand Democratic Left's approach tonight or why the Minister is giving in to pressure.

A third group, the majority, have access to public supplies. I recall from discussions in my former Department some years ago that it was estimated that the capital cost of providing water and sewerage facilities to various towns is in the order of £3 billion. Private individuals in rural areas are required to find all the funds with the exception of the grant. The same principle applies to the group water scheme, but under a public scheme the public are not asked to put money up front. I do not want to hear the argument about double taxation. It does not stand up. Even though taxpayer's money is used to fund those schemes, they are 50 per cent EU funded. The majority of people in towns and villages pay their service charges.

I am sure the Minister is as ashamed as I of the fact that 2,500 homes do not have a domestic water supply. In the scorching sun we are all enjoying at present they must travel to neighbours or to wells for water to wash their children and for other domestic requirements. What has the Minister to say to those people tonight? They would be delighted if the local authority provided them with a service and asked them to pay part of the maintenance in an annual charge. People are not asked to pay the capital cost, they are asked to pay only 33 per cent of the maintenance charge to cover the caretakers, maintenance, purification, electricity and so on.

I am sure many people will wonder what is in this Bill for them. After ten or 12 years of service charges why must we pander to the few? Those who cannot afford to pay must be catered for. The Minister could have improved the administrative system without hauling people into court, imposing such an expense on local authorities and engendering the notion in the minds of the public that he proposes a soft solution. We are moving towards an administrative logjam which will involve writing letters, going to court, paying solicitors and so on when all we need do is encourage the public to face up to the reality.

Providing such services is inordinately expensive and I am sure the Minister wishes he could afford to sanction more schemes for those in need, but he does not have the resources. Everyone who can afford to pay but refuses is putting back the day when we will be in a position to provide more supplies. We should not give succour to them. We should have the courage to tell the public the true position in regard to national and local finances. Unfortunately, instead of the usual energetic and encouraging speech from the Minister, he delivered a bland, cold, careful and disinterested one. He is introducing legislation he does not support and which the majority of people believe is absurd and nonsensical.

Political parties in recent times have pretended there is an easier way, but for the majority that is not the case. I outlined in detail the conditions in which people live in rural areas, what they must do to get involved in group water schemes and the percentage of people who pay. We must consider them because it is they who make such schemes possible, not those who can afford to pay and put the Minister or local authorities up against the wall before they do so.

I ask the Minister seriously to consider withdrawing the Bill and showing courage. Of course he will have trouble with Democratic Left but he should recognise that 95 per cent of the public are sensible and are as talented, if not more so, than any Member of the House. They know that Democratic Left has less than 5 per cent support and may wish to pander to the public to get votes. That is not the Ireland of which I want to be a part. Most people work hard, pay taxes and are willing to pay for a good service. They pay Telecom Éireann and ESB charges and they are prepared to pay for services. The more they know about the reality the more we will eliminate cynicism about politicians. We should not pretend there is an easy way out. The Minister should have resisted the temptation to set up a study group. The Bill should be seen for what it is. He took a further step to hold on to Democratic Left. The tail is wagging the dog, but the dog is not barking. However, Members on this side will bark and vote against the Bill. The people who pay their way and meet their obligations will wonder why we are pandering to those who do not want to do likewise.

Miss Quill

In an attempt to be generous at the outset, I endorse the welcome the previous speaker gave to the Minister and his officials. However, like Deputy Smith, even on a fine summer's evening I cannot say anything good about this Bill. I believe it was the Greeks who once said that those whom the Gods wish to destroy, they first make mad. There is an inherent madness at the heart of this Bill. I am not sure how one would define madness in the context of legislation, but if it means the absence of logic or rationale——

Mr. M. Smith

It is more than that.

Miss Quill

It is much deeper than that.

Mr. Howlin

"Sure wits are close to madness near allied and thin partitions do their bounds divide".

Miss Quill

Pope or no Pope, I do not envisage any citizen or taxpayer benefiting from the provisions of this Bill. By what yardstick does one measure the benefit of a Bill? Will any taxpayer or citizen benefit from this Bill? The answer must be no. A Government with its priorities in order would seek to put in place a proper system of local goverment financing. We all know that every local authority is starved of cash and can scarcely deliver even a minimum standard of basic services. One would expect the Government, with its large majority, to introduce a Bill that would provide a proper system of financing for local authorities, but that is not the case. Instead we have a miserable Bill the provisions of which do not confer advantage on any category of householder or citizen. It represents a major vote of no confidence in the judgment and professionalism of every city and county manager, that adds another layer of complex, unnecessary bureaucracy to the administration of day to day local authority affairs, which is nothing more in origin, than an attempt to bring Democratic Left on side when this Government was being cobbled together a few months ago. In the interim, God knows, there has been little evidence that Democratic Left wants to be offside on any issue that has arisen since the formation of this Government. In my part of the country they are now being called Democratic Left, right and centre. I see no evidence that Democratic Left would secede from this Government if this Bill was not introduced.

Mr. M. Smith

That is why we are encouraging it to withdraw the Bill.

Miss Quill

The Minister should have steeled his nerve on this issue, his track record strongly indicates he is capable of better.

The implementation of the provisions of this Bill will certainly clog up our courts with business that properly belongs elsewhere. City and county managers should have the discretion and judgment to proceed on matters of this nature. All local authorities have a formalised system of waivers in place whereby families and householders who can demonstrate they are not in a position to pay are given a full or partial waiver in accordance with their circumstances. It has been my experience that this has been administered fairly, honestly and conscientiously by local authorities so that those who can demonstrate their inability to pay are not required to do so. That is beyond question.

Clearly there is another category of person in a position and liable to pay but who, for one reason or another, chooses not to. Local authorities should be given the right and discretion to invoke whatever small measures are open to them to endeavour to recover moneys due from such persons. I can think of no good reason for diluting their discretion or undergoing this long-winded, slow, costly process to recover moneys owned. Is it not nonsense that in future we shall ask local authorities to incur costs of £200 and £300 to recover sums of £100 or less? How can the Minister justify to a thinking public that local authorities, on the basis of no logic I can perceive, should be asked to incur that kind of expense to recover moneys owed to them? That is the measure of the nonsense at the heart of this Bill.

A number of local authorities already experience sufficient difficulty collecting a percentage of the money due for service charges, as the system has been cynically abused and exploited by politicians of different parties, at different times, for electoral advantage. The game is now up, the public are not fools and know that each party in this Government, Fine Gael, Labour and Democratic Left, wants to retain the system of service charges. That is clearly demonstrated in the text of this Bill and in what the Minister said this evening. That is fine by me, and I have no doubt the general public will accept that because more and more people are beginning to realise there is no such thing as a free lunch, that certain services are worth paying for.

Instead of the Government saying honestly and openly that it favours the retention of service charges and that the administration of the system will remain intact until such time as it devises or puts another system in place — if that is what this Government plans to do, although I suspect it will not — so much time will be spent drawing up reports, studying them and delaying them that the next general election will have come and gone before it will have the courage or vision to put in place a proper system for financing local authorities.

What does any citizen stand to gain by the addition of this costly layer of bureaucracy on local authorities? No other authority, private or public, has been treated with the same contempt by successive Governments as local authorities. On the one hand, they are required to deliver certain nominated services to the general public while, on the other, we render it increasingly difficult for them to collect the requisite funds to enable them to deliver those same services.

If this principle is to be put in place vis-a±-vis local authorities, will the Government, in all logic and consistency, put the same principle at the disposal of people who do not want to pay their telephone and electricity bills or television licences? Why can the same principle not be placed at the disposal of such people, in the case of those services, when the relevant authorities will have to invoke the same costly procedures to enable them to recover money in respect of telephone and electricity bills or television licences? Why does this principle have to be applied to local authorities only? Why must city and county managers be treated with such contempt? I do not understand it.

Considering the present position with regard to law and order — with a huge backlog of cases awaiting hearing in the district and other courts and as this delay in bringing suspects to a hearing and justice is one of the factors that has undermined the authority of the Garda and our overall criminal justice system — it is unbelievable that the Minister would attempt to place this additional burden on our courts, that cases of this nature would be heard at a time when criminals roam our streets, when drug barons and the godfathers of crime are out on bail for months. It is unbelievable that such a simple matter as the administration of our service charges system should be brought within the remit of our courts in this manner. It shows an extraordinary lack of understanding of the present pressures on our courts, of how our judicial system is breaking down, of how criminals are winning the day, roaming our streets, unable to have their cases heard because of the backlogs of cases to be heard. In those circumstances I fail to understand how the Minister would place this additional, unnecessary burden on our courts.

The Minister would have done the Government great credit if he had abandoned all the promises written into the programme for Government and come into the House with proposals for a proper system of financing local government.

Mr. Howlin

Next year.

Miss Quill

My party has pledged to play its part and we will be supportive of the Minister in bringing in such a measure. The current position with regard to local authorities is unsustainable. Most local authorities have deficits of millions of pounds. The Minister should not shake his head and he should not ask me to list them because I do not intend to do that.

Mr. Howlin

Cork is quite exceptional.

Miss Quill

The level of local services in most local authorities has decreased in recent times.

Mr. Browne

(Carlow-Kilkenny): If we take away their income, they will be worse.

Miss Quill

I am not suggesting we take away the income. Under the terms of this Bill, income will be deferred while we are waiting for court cases to be heard and once compliant payers of service charges realise that this type of luxury treatment is being meted out to those who do not want to pay, a number of them will discontinue paying the charges. If Deputy Browne has read the Bill — perhaps he has not — he will know what it is all about.

Mr. Browne

(Carlow-Kilkenny): The Deputy should not put herself in the superior position of having read the Bill. I can read as well as she.

Miss Quill

I know of local authorities who experience great difficulties in trying to agree an estimate and strike a rate. Each year, when the income from service charges decreases, there is an inevitable increase in the commercial rate. Commercial ratepayers are paying far more than they can afford and what they ought to be expected to pay. The time will come when the commercial rate will be so high that businesses will be forced to close and their workers will have to join the dole queues. They will be unable to pay the ever escalating level of commercial rates.

We must put in place a system which will allow the burden to be evenly distributed between the householder and the commercial ratepayer. That would provide for some element of justice but whenever less income is obtained from the domestic sector, more is demanded from the commercial sector. I believe we have gone too far in this regard and, in the case of my own city, a further increase in rates will result in the closure of businesses and subsequent job losses.

The Minister must be courageous. There is little more information that can be gathered by any group of consultants. There comes a time when no new information can be found. We have arrived at that time in respect of the financing of local authorities. It is an area that has been the subject of a myriad of reports but there are only certain ways by which finance can be found to enable local authorities provide basic and essential public services.

My party believes in the principle of local taxation. Moneys sourced locally are better spent locally and better value for money can be obtained by spending money that way. We also believe, however, that the talk of double taxation is not empty talk. Householders who pay locally for services delivered locally are entitled to an equivalent raduction in the tax they pay into central Exchequer. That is the only fair way of financing local services. There is no doubt that local services are better financed if the moneys are raised locally and my party is more than willing to support the Minister in this regard and will not play cynical political games.

I was born into a family where it was normal practice to pay rates. That is the way we operated and that is the culture in which we were raised. That is the case with the majority of people because they know there is no such thing as a free lunch. If they feel they are getting value for money, they are prepared to pay for a service. At present, they do not believe they are getting value for money. They believe that street sweeping is far from adequate, there is inadequate footpath and street maintenance, the public lighting system is deficient, roads are filled with potholes, there is a lack of development in the provision of libraries, parks and play areas for children. They are the type of facilities that make life better for people in their own communities.

These inadequacies have been a factor since rates on domestic dwellings were removed. There has been a consistent deterioration in the quality and nature of local services. Such a situation cannot continue because local services make the greater contribution to the quality of people's lives. The quality of public lighting in our streets gives us a sense of security. In areas where public lighting is poor, vandalism and petty crime thrives. If footpaths are in a state of good repair, people feel they can walk in comfort. Shoppers want to spend their money in areas where the streets are regularly cleaned. They also want to raise their children in communities that have well stocked libraries and good public parks. People are prepared to pay locally for such services. However, they do not want double taxation. Most people are happy to pay local service charges provided there is an equivalent reduction in their taxation to central Exchequer.

This Bill reflects badly on the Government's priorities in relation to local authorities. It creates an additional burden for city managers and it comes at a time when we are asking local authorities to take on a whole range of extra duties and responsibilities. The three year arts plan of the arts council envisages local authorities being given a whole new range of functions and responsibilities. The Casual Trading Bill and other new legislation put an extra workload on local authorities, and they are not being given the extra funding and personnel. How then can they be expected to carry out all these additional functions? It defies all logic to put this extra hardship on city managers who want to recover moneys due to local authorities to spend on providing public services. My party certainly cannot support this Bill and will vote against it.

Mr. M. Smith

It is crucially important that the Government Members be aware of the folly of their ways. I would, therefore, like to call a quorum so that they can hear this debate.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present.

Kathleen Lynch

I would like to share my time with Deputy John Browne. I appreciate Deputy Smith's calling a quorum because I hate to speak to an empty Chamber. I am much better when we are at full strength. However, I feel Members missed the most entertaining contribution, the Deputy's own. Unfortunately I cannot hear Deputy Noel Ahern who continues to mutter.

I listened to two contributions tonight. I understand why Deputy Smith made his. The contribution which puzzled me most was Deputy Quill's. She spoke about compliant taxpayers who will now be jailed, have their water cut off etc. This debate is about the compliant taxpayers who need a break and who need it locally as opposed to nationally, where we would normally look. I will begin by reading a letter to a man whose name I will not mention because I understand there are certain rules and regulations regarding that, and he probably would not wish to be associated with politicians anyway. It is as follows:

I was very pleased to meet with the delegation from ACRA and I believe our mutual interest in the financing of local authorities will help towards the introduction of a more equitable system which will find greater acceptance in the community generally.

I promised to reply to you setting out the Fianna Fáil position in three areas raised by you. The following is the position in each case:

1. Fianna Fáil are totally opposed to the new system of Local charges and, on return to office, will abolish these charges and repeal the legislation under which they are imposed, namely the Local Government Financial Provisions No. 2. Act of 1983.

In its place, we will introduce new legislation which will end the present unsatisfactory position and put local finances on a sound basis.

This legislation will provide that Local Authorities will receive a guaranteed statutory contribution each year from the Central Exchequer. This Exchequer contribution will be sufficient to provide for a satisfactory level of necessary services.

The new legislation will eliminate the present uncertainty whereby Local Authorities cannot anticipate what the grant from the Central Exchequer each year will be and which has compelled County Managers to impose a new and unacceptable level of service charges against the wishes of the great majority of the local community.

The legislation which will provide for the new statutory grant from the Central Exchequer will not contain any new power to enable elected members to introduce new charges.

2. On the question of an amnesty for those who have not paid water or service charges Fianna Fáil believe this is a matter that must be dealt with by the local authority who levied the charges. Under Coalition legislation the manager has the power to waive the charges.

3. Fianna Fáil recognise that there are many anomalies in the financing of different local authorities under pre 1983 legislation and in government will undertake a review of this situation.

I trust this clarifies for you the Fianna Fáil position regarding the new water and service charges imposed under this Coalition Government legislation. The total collected last year was, as you know, £10.4 million.

Thanking you for your interest in Fianna Fáil Party Policy.

Before I read the signature, let me say the person involved lost interest in Fianna Fáil very soon after that. It is signed by Deputy Robert Molloy.

Proinsias De Rossa

That is what you call a double whammy.

Mr. M. Smith

It is so far out of date you could not believe it.

Kathleen Lynch

I have for many years led a campaign on service charges in Cork. In the recent past two people were jailed for the non-payment of service charges. This led to an outcry and such action was never again taken. Service charges are no more and no less than a form of double taxation. Water charges cannot be equated to telephone charges or other services. Water is necessary for life, a telephone is not.

Mr. M. Smith

Try living without electricity.

Kathleen Lynch

Try getting water from a telephone. The majority of those paying water charges are employed. There is an 87 per cent collection rate in Cork which is very high. Whether water will be turned off depends on where one lives and the figures show that. There is not a need for this draconian measure. If we have such a high collection rate in Cork why is it necessary to turn off water in other areas in order to force people to pay the charges? Either there is something seriously wrong with the system of management or the level of charges.

Tax relief on service charges is not sufficient; they should be abolished. Deputy Quill stated she was raised in the tradition of paying rates. I was raised in the proud tradition of paying tax. I am paying double when I pay local charges. I will not be happy until we have a fairer system of taxation.

Mr. Browne

(Carlow-Kilkenny): I am glad I have company and that the lights are on because I am sure the ghost of Fianna Fáil is hovering over the Chamber. In 1985 I had the doubted privilege of canvassing in the local elections. Fianna Fáil candidates assured the people there was no need to pay water charges. When asked for my view I stated that if they wanted water they would have to pay for it.

Mr. M. Smith

Do not cry about it. We had the same problem with housewives in the 1960s.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy in possession, please, without interruption.

Mr. Browne

(Carlow-Kilkenny): Despite the promises made by my opponents in Fianna Fáil I was elected. When Fianna Fáil had a majority on the council we asked why it did not abolish water charges. It said it could only do so when in Government. The gods were unkind and Fianna Fáil was returned to power. Fianna Fáil councillors who advised people not to pay water charges increased the charges. Some of them still represent Carlow, some are in high places and some are from the Deputy's county.

Mr. M. Smith

Name them. I do not know them well.

Mr. Browne

(Carlow-Kilkenny): I do not want to give them the publicity. Deputy Smith decried water charges. He should put his pride in his pocket and accept what is happening.

Mr. M. Smith

I did not decry water charges.

Mr. Browne

(Carlow-Kilkenny): The Deputy decried the Bill.

Mr. M. Smith

The Minister does not believe in the Bill.

Mr. Browne

(Carlow-Kilkenny): Carlow County Council is no different from other county councils. It issues demands and reminders and officials call to people and explain the position. In extreme cases the water supply is disconnected. It occurred four times last year. If the cases went to court they would have been upheld. The waiver system should be extended. The charges are based on the total income of a household and it is a family matter if a teenager does not contribute to the payment.

I was bamboozled by Deputy Quill's contribution. I did not know what she was for or against. She wanted clean streets, lighting and the payment of service charges. She insulted council officials by giving the impression that they would clog up the courts system and delay the hearing of cases against drug barons and so on. At the end of her speech she supported the Minister and the payment of water charges. She said commercial rates were too high but that is because we do not have the guts at local level to charge for the services we provide.

I recently met a person in a pub who was plastered out of his mind. A quarter of the money he had spent on drink would have paid his water charges. In the most colourful language imaginable he informed me he would not pay water charges. He did not see anything wrong with spending a small fortune on drink while expecting water to be provided free of charge. I asked him if he paid his milk bill. Milk is an important product but if you do not pay your bill you will not be supplied with it. I accept the argument about double taxation to a certain extent but what about those who do not live in towns? They may pay £1,000 to sink a well. If the pump bursts they must pay for the repair. Everyone pays taxes but for some strange reason those living in towns expect to have free water. I accept that we must ensure people on low incomes are exempt from paying water charges.

Carlow County Council always reacts favourably when I bring cases of genuine hardship to its notice. Council officials should not be painted as hooligans trying to disrupt the country and clog up the courts. Deputy Quill spoke about deficits but how are county councils to get money if they do not charge for services? I was elected to the county council in 1979. At that time it cost the council £76,000 to supply water and I asked why it did not pay for itself. Why should people living in the country supply their own water and pay for a sewerage system which may need to be cleaned out twice a year depending on the condition of the soil?

I welcome the tax break for those who pay the charges. Those who have a water supply laid on have much to be thankful for. Many people with a private water supply and a septic tank would willingly pay local service charges for such a service. Councils cannot provide services unless they charge for them. We should not hedge the issue in such a way that it seems we are for the payment of charges on the one hand and against them on the other. Increasing the commercial rate is an easy option. We are not brave enough to charge for the services we provide. I welcome the tax break for those who pay water charges and I commend the Minister for bringing in the Bill.

Mr. N. Ahern

This is an inadequate Bill, introduced to give legal effect to a foolish decision to appease Democratic Left. The Minister is inconsistent as his stance at question time a week or two before this was announced was different from what he is saying now. I am sure that when he comes to look back on his political career — we all do this no matter how short or long our careers are — he would like to think that all his decisions would stand the test of time. He was a good Minister for Health and I am sure he will be able to look back with pride on many of the decisions he made while in that position but I do not think this decision will stand the test of time.

We all understand why the Bill was introduced. Democratic Left made this issue its hobby horse over a number of years and the Minister provided them with a way out. It is politics but not a great decision.

We should encourage people to stand on their own feet, to be responsible for their decisions and their due debts and not to rely on the Government to bail them out. There have been disconnections but in a caring, not a ruthless, way. To suggest that local authorities and county managers have been ruthless and are cutting off poor people is a lie and unfair to local authority officials who, like everyone else, have a job to do.

The Bill is giving the wrong signal to decent people. We rely on 80 to 90 per cent of people to uphold a certain standard of decency and to keep services going. In future many people will ask why they should bother paying because they see other people dragging their feet, buying time and hoping the problem will eventually become bogged down in bureaucracy. We must try to appeal to decent people and signals such as this will be wrongly interpreted. This is not just about water charges but about all other laws, rules and regulations.

At an election during the 1980s we encouraged people, regardless of whether they agreed with charges, to pay them because it was the law. We said we would see if we could abolish the charges in the future. We did so in Dublin but this may not have happened in other parts of the country. Charges were imposed in Dublin for three years and it was eventually decided that, because of a technicality, they did not have to be paid for two of them. Many decent people tackled me about having encouraged them to pay. It was tough luck for those who had paid as those who did not got away with it. This deeply upset me and it would have been proper to give a refund to those who paid on time.

My concern is that this proposal sends the wrong signal and undermines decent citizens. There are too many pseudointellectual principled objectors. The Minister suggested he is not playing into their hands but he is. He said that if this does not happen, compliant citizens will rightly question why they should continue to pay, if the Bill is passed, compliant citizens will do exactly this as it does not offer succour or consolation to the so-called conscientious objector who, by propounding some self-serving logic, leaves it to the rest of the community to foot the bill on his behalf. The Bill will do everything the Minister says it will not do. I do not want to undermine people who feel they have a conscientious objection to something. However, some people have objections to almost everything and they seem sincere each time. They seem to be professional at raising objections. They might have got away with many things to date but now we are giving them the official seal of approval and condoning their behaviour.

This Bill will result in another layer of bureaucracy in spite of what the Minister said. However, he outlined that demands must be issued in writing and that at least two reminders of outstanding charges and two more warnings must be issued. This is the end of it only from the local authority's point of view. The matter then has to go to court to become bogged down there. Such cases will become like those involving parking fines. They will become lost in the system and a question will be tabled here in a few years asking how many of these court orders have been implemented.

This issue is making an ass of the House. This Bill is playing to the so called conscientious objectors and making a skit out of the ordinary decent citizen. I totally dissociate myself from it. Local authorities operate a generous waiver system and nobody can say their officials have been unreasonable. If a case is made to them, they will ensure there is no undue hardship.

During Private Members' Business, we discussed prison places. It has been said repeatedly that people should not be put in prison for the non-payment of fines, that jail should be a last resort, that we should find other ways of forcing people to comply with the law. One example of this is to cut off a water supply. There are people who say they do not mind their water supply being cut off, but other family members put pressure on them to pay the charges. I am not happy that this power should be watered down.

Deputy Browne referred to the promises made by my party on this issue. We could all refer to the promises by various parties on it. Water charges were originally introduced in 1983 by what I presume was a Fine Gael-Labour Government — I think the then Minister for the Environment was Deputy Dick Spring. In 1985 my party promised to abolish water charges and they were abolished in Dublin in 1986. Fianna Fáil is an open party and it was left to individual councillors to decide whether charges should be abolished. Some councils abolished the charges at that time while others did not.

I accept the points about double taxation, but we all pay tax in several ways. While the granting of tax relief is not a bad idea, I would not necessarily go along with the motives behind it. It is important to remember that the hullabaloo about double taxation first began in the mid-1980s when the higher rate of income tax was 55 per cent and the standard rate was 35 per cent. It is unfair to use the same argument in 1995 when the higher rate of income tax has been reduced to 48 per cent and the standard rate to 27 per cent. If the issue of water charges had been discussed and were part of the deal for reducing the income tax rates, the social partners would have understood what was happening and would have been happy with it.

I am speaking from the strange position that my local authority does not collect water charges — my party abolished them some years ago. Recently an increasing number of people have told me that they would willingly pay water charges if they could be assured of a water supply when they turn on a tap. I listened to the rural Deputies referring to people who had to go to a well to get water. Maybe people in Dublin have been brought up soft, but they expect this basic necessity to be available at all times. I was part of a delegation which met the Minister to discuss this issue. I do not want to go into this point in detail but people expect a water supply when they turn on a tap. This expectation is more deeply enshrined in people living in Dublin who only paid for this service for a few years. If they had to pay for it all the time they might have a keener sense of what is right and wrong.

A minority of the members on Dublin City Council support the idea of water charges and the installation of meters so that people pay for what they use. The shortage of water has not been caused by the recent sunny spell; it is due to the fact that there is not enough water to meet all the requirements. The severe water shortage in my constituency of Dublin North West, which is supplied by the Leixlip water works, affects domestic consumers and industries. This area has almost been written off and the IDA does not direct foreign industries to it. Consultants are examining the problem and I hope it can be solved as soon as possible.

The Minister said that he had appointed a consultant to look at the funding of local authorities. He is not the first Minister to do this and it should have been possible to take some of the reports off the shelves in the Department, dust them and look at what they say. We do not need more reports as the ways of raising funding for local authorities have already been thrashed out at political and consultant level. What we need is the political will to make decisions. To be fair to him, if the Minister is opting out of making a decision he is not the first Minister to do so. If this is what he is doing he will not be proud of it in time. I have always regarded him as a Minister who grasped the nettle and got on with the job. The appointment of another consultant, whether or not he is a political friend, is merely prolonging the decision; it is a delaying tactic.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present,

Mr. N. Ahern

The Minister wants to bring in a fair, equitable and reasonable system of funding which can be introduced with a view to publishing a White Paper on the subject. Looking for a consultant's report and a White Paper is long fingering the issue and is putting a final decision way down the line.

Water charges bring in £50 million and RPT brings in £15 million. I tabled a parliamentary question which asked if VAT was increased or if a local sales tax of 0.5 of 1 per cent was introduced, would it bring in more money than both those taxes together? A few years ago we reduced VAT from 23 per cent to 21 per cent. I do not know if consumers ever noticed the value of that in the shops. It might have been better to have reduced it to 21 per cent VAT plus 2 per cent local sales tax which would not have been any business of the EU. It would have covered rate support grants and the whole shooting gallery. It might have put a few pounds back into local government, which is badly needed.

If we look back to the late 1980s, when the squeeze was put on several Government Departments, including Environment, Health and Education and on local authorities, money seems to have been ploughed back into these other Departments but not into local authorities, which are still getting by on a shoe string. I agree that the Minister might be a bit more generous with the odd special grant, but as regards the rate support grant or any of the basic funding, local authorities are still trying to keep things going at a basic level.

Local authorities are not being used to the fullest. They could be used for generating employment because they know what needs to be done. I would like to see the facilities and the influence of local authorities used to a greater degree. I am sure all these suggestions are on the shelves in the Department of the Environment in the numerous reports carried out by various Government Ministers from all parties over the years. No matter how innovative this new consultant is, I doubt if he can come up with anything new.

Mr. E. O'Keeffe

This is the most foolish legislation to be introduced in this Chamber. I doubt if legislation has ever made the Guinness Book of Records, but this should certainly be in it. It is more of a tabloid Bill than anything we have ever seen. It is simply to gum the three Government parties together. That is the thinking behind it.

Mr. Sheehan

Deputy O'Keeffe's party would have taken on a third party if it would have kept it in power.

Mr. E. O'Keeffe

I sympathise with the Minister, who is practical, especially when he must introduce rubbishy legislation to amend the 1993 Local Government Act, which was introduced by the Tánaiste, Deputy Spring, to give local authority managers the right to introduce service charges. Deputy Sheehan is totally opposed to the Bill because there is a great uptake and payment in his electoral area, West Cork. This will be to his disadvantage.

Mr. Sheehan

We are in the back of beyond. We are getting the crumbs from the master's table.

Mr. E. O'Keeffe

They are all paying their charges. Deputy Sheehan has a good electorate, he has it well conditioned and he has spoken of it favourably.

Mr. Sheehan

Thanks to the former Minister for Agriculture, Deputy J. Walsh.

Mr. E. O'Keeffe

I have no doubt that Deputy Sheehan will be disappointed when the next take-up of money is being examined and when the rating system is being looked at because there will be a shortfall.

The Irish Derby will take place next Sunday where we will see the three card trick men. They are geniuses in their own way. I am sure that if they were asked to draft the Bill, they would have presented much better legislation than this. The Bill refers to the delimitation of water connection powers. What is that about? One would have known from the Minister's short opening address that he was not sincere about the Bill. He spoke about employing a consultant and about a £50 million take. That is a disgrace.

There is a waiver system in place in the Cork area which works well. We have a managerial authority established under the relevant Act, we use discretion and we have instalment payments. If this Government, the Labour Party and the so-called Democratic Left, were sincere, they would have given an exemption to old age pensioners and to the long-term unemployed. Then they would have made progress and faced up to their responsibilities. They have done a three card trick job. Some 300,000 people are unemployed and many families cannot afford to pay the charges. If the Government had wanted to be sincere, it would have given them an exemption. Why does the Government not face up to its responsibilities?

Mr. Sheehan

What did Deputy O'Keeffe's party give them?

Mr. E. O'Keeffe

I am aware of many contributory old age pensioners, who do not have a second or a third pension, who would gladly have accepted a total waiver or exemption. Then the Democratic Left would not have needed to shelter behind such a Bill.

I do not understand the thinking behind the Bill. Since this began in 1985, many mechanisms have been put in place. We had reached a situation where it was recognised that people would pay in a fair and honest way through the different systems which were introduced to help and assist. However, this will put the clock back because everyone will end up in court.

Mr. Sheehan

Not until they are properly notified.

Mr. E. O'Keeffe

I am disappointed that Deputy Sheehan is trying to cover up for the Government.

Mr. Sheehan

I always call a spade a spade.

Mr. E. O'Keeffe

Deputy Sheehan knows that 20 million gallons of water are pumped each day in Cork, which is of the highest and finest quality produced in Europe and which is of the highest EU standard. It is pumped through miles of pipeline and it costs money in terms of capital expenditure to place it. Cork could do with more money for water schemes. Places like Fermoy and Ballyhea and other places in mid-Cork badly need extra funding. Why has that been delayed? No capital projects of a substantial nature have been presented. Let us come to grips with this and finalise the water structure and systems in Cork so as to give us an adequate water supply. Some 20 million gallons of water are pumped each day.

Mr. Sheehan

When we had a Cabinet Minister the Deputy's party got rid of him.

Mr. E. O'Keeffe

We have excellent engineers, water curators and sanitary officers in Cork and the water of the highest quality. We are probably the envy of other counties.

Mr. Sheehan

Thanks to Cork County Council.

Mr. E. O'Keeffe

The work was funded by Fianna Fáil in Government.

Mr. Sheehan

The Deputy's party did not do much about it. Fianna Fáil created all the confusion about the service charges.

Mr. E. O'Keeffe

The meter system——

Mr. Sheehan

There was no trace of the water schemes in Skibbereen or Schull until the Minister for the Environment, Deputy Howlin, introduced them.

Mr. E. O'Keeffe

Many of our supplies are based on a meter system. Meters become faulty, mistakes occur and the meters have to be repaired. There is always goodwill on the part of the manager and the council staff to correct those faults and to give a discount if necessary. Cork county manager and staff exercise discretion. Publicans have had meters installed. Those who do not have meters live in houses and bungalows in rural areas. They pay £80 per house per annum. A waiver system is in place for anyone who cannot meet that commitment. I am concerned about the goodwill that had been built up between the local authority and the public in regard to water supply.

Mr. Sheehan

There was no goodwill from the Deputy's party.

Mr. E. O'Keeffe

Last December we had a change of Government. The major issue on which the Government was formed was not the economy but service charges for which a mere £50 million had been collected by 8 January 1994.

Mr. Sheehan

The Deputy's records are out of date.

Mr. Mulvihill

What year did Fianna Fáil offer to abolish service charges?

Mr. E. O'Keeffe

Fianna Fáil never said it would abolish them.

Mr. Sheehan

I am sure Deputy O'Keeffe was ahead of the posse in east Cork.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

This is unacceptable, let us hear the Deputy.

Mr. E. O'Keeffe

We all know the reason this Bill was introduced at this time. It is another gimmick to convince the electorate of Wicklow. The people of Bray were fooled on the last occasion but they will not be fooled this time. The reason the Deputy is here tonight is he knows he is not wanted in Wicklow. The Government was founded on this Bill. What is the House coming to? I fear for the country and this Administration. I know in my heart and soul that the people I am canvassing are of the same opinion. They are living in fear of what will happen under this Administration. When an Administration is founded on the issue of domestic charges, at a loss of £50 million to the taxpayer, it is about time it got its answer.

Mr. Sheehan

The Deputy can sleep happy in the knowledge that the country is in good hands.

Mr. D. Ahern

The Deputy will get his answer.

Mr. E. O'Keeffe

If Deputy Sheehan was in the vale of Avoca——

Mr. Sheehan

Shall I call for a quorum again?

Mr. E. O'Keeffe

I have heard much about local government reform and I accept the sincerity of the Minister in this regard. He is a good Minister and he excelled in another ministry.

Mr. Sheehan

The Deputy did not think that when his party dismissed him.

Mr. D. Ahern

He got out when all the money was spent on health.

Mr. E. O'Keeffe

The Minister said: I am pleased to inform the House that earlier today I announced the appointment of a consultant to carry out this important study". I suspect that is a study of local government funding.

Mr. D. Ahern

Surely not another consultant?

Mr. E. O'Keeffe

We can all fund local government but if the Government had the will to legislate for such funding Deputy Sheehan would be the first to oppose it in Cork.

Mr. Sheehan

The Deputy's party did not have the power to drive the windmill in Cape Clear.

Mr. E. O'Keeffe

The Deputy would be afraid to go back to Union Hall for fear they would send him back.

Mr. Sheehan

The Deputy's party does not have the power to drive a windmill in Cape Clear, that party will have to go by the wayside.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Please Deputies.

Mr. E. O'Keeffe

The Deputy has no interest in local authorities because if he had he would defend the Minister. I wish to share my time with Deputy Brendan Smith. I thank the Chair for the opportunity to contribute. I sympathise with the Minister on having to introduce such foolish legislation.

Mr. Sheehan

I thank the Deputy for his contribution.

Mr. E. O'Keeffe

It makes a laughing stock of his ministry and his Department, which has a huge spending capacity. Such legislation has not been heard of in the House since the foundation of the State. It questions the sincerity of the Government. The message in it is loud and clear for the electorate in Wicklow. Following the introduction of this legislation, the people of Wicklow will say: jGet the Government out fast and save the nation".

Mr. Mulvihill

Were it not for the fact that I know the Deputy so well I would think he was serious.

Mr. B. Smith

I am glad of the opportunity to speak on the Bill. What strikes me about it is that the Government has cobbled together a Bill to meet the political needs of the smallest party in the Government. The existing arrangements for the collection of service charges, by and large, are acceptable and do not cause serious anxiety in any of the local authorities in counties Cavan and Monaghan. The Minister referred on a number of occasions to the existing system as one that is working satisfactorily and that takes into account difficulties people may have in meeting the relevant charges at the appropriate time.

We all receive representations regularly from people who wish to avail of the waiver scheme. The local authorities of which I am a member are always anxious to deal with representations in the most humane way possible from any family experiencing particular financial difficulties in meeting the charges. The Minister stated:

...these charges are an important source of income for local authorities so much so that in the region of £50 million was collected in domestic charges in 1994—

It is, of course, entirely at the discretion of each local authority to decide whether or not to levy charges, and to set the level of such charges—

In many circumstances, local authorities consider disconnection to be a more realistic and effective option. There is no doubt that disconnection is a severe measure and it is one which is not implemented lightly by local authorities—

Disconnection has not been used as a first line of attack, or in an uncaring fashion by local authorities around the country. Indeed there is evidence that local authorities generally have adopted a responsible and sympathetic attitude in this matter.

If we are to take the Minister at his word this legislation is unnecessary. To give the power to the courts to decide on who should have the water supply disconnected is taking away the decision-making role of the local elected representative. We have heard pious platitudes from Governments of all political shades about giving more power back to locally elected members and more local democracy. Surely the Minister's speech flies in the face of any aspiration the Government may have in that regard. I speak for the local authorities of Cavan and Monaghan who have implemented a system that deals with the needs of the people. Provision has been made to establish a waiver system where a family is unable to meet its commitments. In 1994 Cavan County Council had the second highest rate of charges for water, refuse collection and sewerage at £195. The collection rate is about 90 per cent. County Cavan is not without its difficulties in regard to local government.

Debate adjourned.