I think Deputy Ned O'Keeffe should not have said the other evening he was sharing time with me. I thought it was my slot.
Local Government (Delimitation of Water Supply Disconnection Powers) Bill, 1995: Second Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
It appears there was a clear understanding on Tuesday that Deputy Ned O'Keeffe was sharing time with Deputy Brendan Smith. Deputy Smith should have raised that matter then but, if there are no objections on the part of Members, I am prepared to allow him a separate time slot of 16 minutes if that is satisfactory. Is that agreed? Agreed.
In introducing this Bill the Minister admitted that the disconnection of water supply is a last resort of local authorities, a step not taken lightly. He agreed that local authorities have been sympathetic and responsible in their exercise of that power. If it is not broken, why fix it? Why plunge local authorities into this bureaucratic merry-go-round when they have been sensible and sympathetic dealing with problem cases. Up to 600,000 householders regularly pay their annual service charges. As few as 900, a fraction of 1 per cent only, have had their water supply disconnected.
This absurd Bill, with all its tedious procedures and guidelines, has been introduced for the sake of a very small number of householders who cannot and, in many cases, will not pay their fair share. One wonders what signal this Bill will send to the hundreds of thousands of hardworking citizens who strive to pay their fair share in all walks of life only to observe the Government and this Minister, at the behest of the Democratic Left Party, fretting over the handful who fail to pay for whatever reason. If this is the attempt of Democratic Left to shore-up their left wing credibility, it is a poor, pathetic effort.
After the enactment of this Bill each local authority will have to write to a defaulting householder no fewer than six times, thereafter seeking a court order if it is necessary to disconnect supply. Whatever happened to the concept of greater autonomy for local authorities and locally-elected public representatives? This Bill will erode the power of local authorities to manage their affairs, divesting so much of their administration to the courts. The new arrangement is showing signs already of seriously affecting the revenue local authorities will be able to collect.
For example, in my county of Cavan, which had the second highest rate of service charges in 1994, with a 90 per cent collection rate, already in 1995 the local authority revenue collected is 30 per cent down on the corresponding period last year. People now know just how difficult it will be for any local authority to disconnect supply. Some will be even more tempted to exploit the opportunities afforded them to defer payments for several months or not to pay.
How does the Minister propose to make up the revenue shortfall that would now appear to be inevitable for local authorities, already experiencing serious funding difficulties? One also wonders what people in rural areas, many of whom must pay thousands of pounds to instal their own water supplies, will think of a Bill that seeks to comfort other householders who, in many cases, pay only small annual charges for water and sewerage connections; it will hardly strike them as fair, just or equitable.
I would be more concerned about people living in houses lacking basic sanitary facilities which should be addressed with greater urgency as everybody should have such facilities in their homes. Indeed, it would be opportune for the Minister to consider the reintroduction of a limited house improvement grant scheme whereby householders could be assisted in providing basic facilities and comforts in homes which do not have them.
Many Deputies have contributed to the debate on this Bill. I am grateful for the interest and depth of those contributions and I intend to respond to as many of the important issues raised as possible. Before doing so, I would like to recall briefly the purpose of the Bill and its effects because many of the comments made from the other side of the House were not focused on the real intent of the Bill and did not reflect its real impact.
The Bill meets a commitment in the Government's policy agreement, A Government of Renewal. It is designed primarily to protect the individual in the serious matter of water supply disconnection without introducing any unreasonable or unworkable regulations or restrictions on local authorities in their efforts to recover outstanding water charges.
The notification procedures set out in the Bill are, for the most part, already in operation by local authorities and, in many cases, have been for years. I notified them by regulation last April and they are in effect. Three notices, not six, are required under the regulations circulated earlier and that is reasonable and fair. The Bill establishes formal, standardised and statute-backed procedural arrangements which will ensure that people are fully aware where they stand on this important issue and know they will be treated in like manner whether they are in Cavan, Wexford, Dublin or Donegal.
I have already referred to the fact that service charges will be considered as part of the professional study on local government financing which I commissioned earlier this week. Deputy Michael Smith surprised me by suggesting that the study is a compromise, a cop-out and a cover-up. Deputy Smith was my immediate predecessor as Minister for the Environment. He knows the financial problems faced by local authorities. He knows the difficulties experienced by them in generating acceptable levels of services and facilities, as does every other Member of the House who is, or was, a member of a local authority. Does Deputy Smith believe that the present system of local government funding is working well or, more fundamentally, is an appropriate or an effective one? I genuinely do not believe that is his view.
Local authority finances need to be put on a much firmer footing. To do this properly, we must consider all the options, critically evaluate their potential and likely consequences and decide how best to implement the agreed solution. Part of that process — and I make no apology for it — will be the building of the consensus needed among members of local authorities and the general public who are committed to having an effective tier of local government.
Despite what Deputy Quill may say, there is no easy solution. If there were, it would have been tried and implemented long before now. The study, therefore, is not a compromise, a cover-up or a cop-out; it is a genuine attempt to tackle a difficult and often contentious issue in a serious way. As Minister for the Environment, I am committed to seeing it through and I am confident the study will form the basis of a comprehensive and imaginative review. With the publication of the White Paper we can build consensus and, for the first time in a generation, move forward the issue of local government reform.
Deputy Quill suggested it is inappropriate to have the issue of water supply disconnection examined in the courts. We are all agreed that disconnection of water supply can have serious repercussions for householders and individuals. It is therefore essential that consumers perceive the disconnection system to be transparent and fair, and the courts will provide them with safeguards. The independence of the courts is beyond question and will provide forceful back-up to the decision of a local authority to disconnect in appropriate cases.
I am as concerned as the Deputy to ensure that the new measures will not overburden the courts. In drawing up the Bill, I was conscious of the concerns raised by her and I specifically and deliberately included provisions relating to evidence and burden of proof which will minimise the possibility of delays and obviate the potential for long drawn out legal battles or court proceedings. My colleague, the Minister for Justice, announced last week that she has obtained Government approval to prepare a Bill that will contain a package of initiatives aimed at reforming the courts and the judicial system. The initiatives will streamline the courts system and will, among other measures, provide a statutory basis for an increase in the number of District Court judges available to deal with the current backlog.
I am at a loss to understand how Deputy Michael Smith considers that this Bill should be somehow tied in with people who provide their own water supplies. Such people are not liable for water charges. The Deputy specifically referred to group water schemes. I am proud of my record in this area in a mere six months. Since I came to office, I have launched a number of important initiatives on group water schemes. In March, I announced increased group scheme grants which more than doubled previous maximum grant rates to take account of rising costs and to further encourage the provision of rural piped water supplies through co-operative effort. In April, I approved over 140 group water schemes which will provide quality water supply to approximately 2,300 rural households and associated farms at an estimate cost of £6.5 million. I also gave an undertaking to advance the planning of other large group schemes throughout the country.
Deputy Quill expressed the view that the Bill represents a vote of no confidence in the judgment of local authority officials and that local authorities should have discretion in this matter. Deputy Ahern also felt it was an unfair reflection on local authority officials. I reject these comments out of hand. In my opening speech on Tuesday, I made it quite clear that the Bill should not be interpreted to suggest that local authorities have acted improperly in the use of their disconnection power and I said that authorities had adopted a responsible and sympathetic attitude. The procedures in the Bill which are being introduced because of the severity of the disconnection sanction will do nothing to remove the discretion of local authorities in deciding on disconnection.
Both Deputies Smith and Quill suggested that the proposed new notification arrangements will give rise to unnecessary bureaucracy and additional work for local authorities. The new measures may initially have minor implications for some local authorities in terms of adjusting their existing procedural arrangements to ensure compliance with the law. Once the initial adjustments have been made, however, there is no reason to believe the new procedures will place any additional burden on local authorities. There are two main reasons for this. First, the notification procedures required under the Bill are already being implemented in large measure by local authorities. The fact that these will, in future, be mandatory by statute should not give rise to much additional work.
Second, the Bill has been designed to minimise the potential for unnecessary bureaucracy and to avoid the creation of an unreasonable additional workload on the part of local authorities. Under section 3(6), a sanitary authority will be entitled to give prima facie evidence as to compliance with any of the notification procedures under the Bill. Under section 6, information from the records of a sanitary authority will be admissible as evidence on foot of a straightforward certification process. It will be possible for local authorities to keep computerised records, thereby precluding a need to file and keep copies of all reminders or warning notices issued.
Lest there be any doubt about the number of notifications required to be issued before disconnection, under Article 1 (b) of the Schedule to the Bill, it is possible to issue warning notices in conjunction with the reminders. Thus, before a final notice is delivered to a consumer's premises, a local authority need send only one initial demand and two follow-up reminders or warning notices. This cannot be considererd too bureaucratic or onerous a task.
Deputy Michael Smith expressed concern that the new arrangements for disconnecting water supplies for non-payment of charges will adversely affect service charge collection rates with resultant consequences for local authority income. This possibility also worried Deputies Quill, O'Keeffe and Brendan Smith. I reject this notion. The power to disconnect has not been abolished and will not be abolished by the statute. It remains to deal with people with adequate resources who refuse to pay their charges. The Bill simply puts in place a procedural mechanism in respect of water supply disconnection which is necessary to provide a certain basic level of information and protection for all consumers. Consumers will be in no doubt as to the possible eventual outcome of refusal to pay any overdue charges. Under the notification procedures, the penalty for disconnection for refusal to pay charges will be hammered home to consumers through the issuing of the statutorily required warning notices.
In addition, Deputies should not forget that, as promised in the policy agreement A Government of Renewal, a new income tax allowance was provided in this year's Finance Act in respect of service charges paid in full on time. The new allowance will be a valuable incentive to people to pay on time thus protecting and enhancing local authority incomes derived from such charges. The allowances will commence in the year 1996-97 in respect of service charges paid in the current year. It is worth emphasising also that local authorities are stepping up their efforts to encourage early payment of charges through promotional schemes.
Deputy Ahern said local authorities' powers to disconnect are being watered down. The power to disconnect is being restricted only in so far as it will be no longer possible to disconnect a water supply where the person has not paid because of hardship. I make no excuse for this. Nobody in the House would advocate cutting off the water supply of a person who is unable to meet the charge. This restriction will not be a significant factor in terms of local authority income because local authorities throughout the country already operate generous waiver schemes in hardship cases.
As a once off exercise, my Department recently sought information from a number of local authorities as to the collection rates in 1995. It will be of particular interest to the Deputies present that the responses received indicate that in more than 50 per cent of cases the collection rates for the first quarter of this year were up compared with the same period last year. Deputy Michael Smith, who raised this, will be glad to know that Tipperary (North Riding) County Council's collection rates for service charges are up significantly on 1994 levels, almost 66 per cent for the first quarter of this year, and Deputy Brendan Smith will be interested to know that the collection rates in Cavan are up by 10 per cent in the first quarter of this year. Despite the fears expressed by those two Deputies, income is not only not collapsing, it is increasing over the same period last year. The Deputies will be heartened to hear of that positive outcome of the regulations which I introduced. I reject any suggestion that the Bill will result in a fall off in the payment of charges. Putting notification procedures on a statutory footing will have a greater impact on people and encourage rather than discourage payment of charges.
This is a short and simple Bill, and its purpose is clear. It is intended to provide a proper balance between protection of individual consumers and the need to allow strict sanctions against defaulters to ensure recovery of charges which are properly due. The negative attitude of Deputies on the Opposition benches is unjustified. This Bill will act as a charter for people who pay water charges. It will provide protection to the less well off in our society who cannot pay. At the same time, it will preserve the powers of local authorities to cut off the supplies of non compliant consumers who have the resources to pay but refuse to do so.
I am happy that this Bill strikes the right balance and it deserves support. I thank all Deputies who contributed to this debate.
Question put.
A division being demanded, the taking of the division was postponed until Wednesday, 5 July 1995, in accordance with an Order of the Dáil of this day.