There was debate about the autonomy of local authorities to set charges as they see fit and the view has been expressed that there should be a uniform waiver system. I have decided to issue guidelines on the operation of waiver schemes, focusing on their consistency, so that people in similar circumstances can expect to be treated in a similar fashion across the country.
Local Government (Delimitation of Water Supply Disconnection Powers) Bill, 1995: Committee Stage (Resumed) and Remaining Stages.
Question again proposed: "That section 3, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
I thank the Minister for that but I do not agree with the provisions of the Bill.
The Minister mentioned the clarity which now derives to all sides as a result of the discussion of the Bill. Perhaps for the first time since their introduction, all political parties are now in favour of service charges. They have demonstrated this in the House by their support for the Bill, which was introduced by the three party Government comprising Fine Gael, the Labour Party and Democratic Left. It is their Bill and it consolidates and maintains the system of service charges.
My party supports service charges until such times as a different or better system of financing local authorities is put in place. The same applies to the other Opposition parties. There is now uniformity in this area which did not exist previously. It seems all political parties in the House are now in favour of service charges. It also seems the Government parties are in favour of disconnecting the water supply of people who are in a position to pay the charges but refuse to do so. That aspect has been clarified. It seems we have reached a point of clarity in relation to the political approaches to service charges. This is the only useful thing which has emerged from the Bill.
When estimates are discussed by the various local authorities, it is important that the position of Deputies and councillors of the same party is consistent. Parties which indicated their support for service charges in the House during the course of the Bill must be prepared to support service charges in their local authority areas at estimates discussions. If this was the case, it would help local authorities in attempting to put in place a certain amount of finance which would enable them to deliver local services of a minimum standard.
I made the point earlier that Irish people who travel abroad see the difference between villages, towns and cities where there is a certain element of local taxation and money collected locally is spent locally. In such areas, good cleaning systems are in place. There is an absence of litter; these places are well developed and maintained from the point of view of the provision of public parks, libraries, etc. Cities and towns run in this manner have enormous appeal. This is possible because sufficient money is available at local level and local services of a given standard can be delivered. We should try to aspire to this ideal.
I hope there will be consistency within political parties in the run up to next year's local authority estimates meetings. I hope that on their home base, that they will support the principle they have supported in the House. If that happened, local authorities might be in a reasonable position to carry on until it is possible to put in place a proper system of financing of local authorities. As I stated on many occasions, the Minister will have the co-operation and support of my party when he is in a position to consider the broader picture of the financing of local authorities. I wish we were addressing this issue today.
The current situation in relation to the financing of local authorities is far from satisfactory. It deteriorates yearly and, if it is allowed to worsen much further, the standard of local public services will be irreparably damaged. The sooner the necessary legislation is introduced the better. In the meantime, I urge the Minister to use his influence with councillors from the Government parties to do at local level what they have already done in the House in supporting the service charge system.
My admiration for the Minister in his various portfolios has been recorded previously. However, having listened to this discussion and read the Second Stage debate, particularly the Minister's contribution, my admiration for him grows. He has made a good job of trying to defend the indefensible in this House with regard to this Bill; he has done so with a straight face most of the time and he has almost managed to convince himself, and his officials are probably convinced at this stage, that he believes the Bill was necessary because something was seriously wrong in the local authority system, that it was needed for clarification purposes — as he said — and on the basis of justice and hardship. I know the Minister reasonably well and he has not convinced me, although the performance was very good.
This section — which is the core of the Bill — is clearly only a political move to provide cover for the Minister's Democratic Left colleagues. I am glad Deputy Quill made this point, which I made when the policy document A Government of Renewal was first announced. The Democratic Left Party has lived off the backs of less well off people over the last ten years in relation to service charges. They had no equivocation whatsoever at local authority level or in the House with regard to their policy on service charges, which was that they would abolish them if they got into Government. They are now in Government, and what we have now is this thin and — for once from this Government — transparent attempt to give them some type of cover in relation to the total abandonment of their policy, which gathered them support at local authority level and probably secured support for various Democratic Left Deputies.
As Deputy Quill pointed out, Democratic Left has abandoned its policy and commitment to abolish service charges when it got into Government. It had an opportunity to do so but it did not take it. Perhaps they will now get rid of the hypocrisy and get down to the real business of local government and get off the backs of the poorer sections of the community, to whom they have fed lies and untruths for the last ten years with regard to their real approach to local government.
The Minister has consistently defended his position. He said on Second Stage there was a need for clearly defined steps in relation to disconnecting the water supply of those who were unable or who refused to pay charges. I have to make a clear distinction: I have no problem about disconnecting the water supply of people who are able to pay the charges and refuse to do so. Every party should take this position although, as Deputy Quill said, this now appears to be the case.
The Minister makes a case for the Bill on the basis that the steps which must be taken before a local authority can disconnect water supply are being clearly defined. I agree clarification is always useful and that some local authorities may have needed it. However, it was not necessary to bring in a Bill to do it. The Minister could have done what he did on 4 April; he could have issued a circular to local authorities setting out the procedures which must be followed.
From my contacts with local authorities, I know that when the Minister made his initial statement on this and the programme for Government was published, local authorities automatically stopped disconnecting and threatening to disconnect water supplies until he clarified the matter. I am sure the Minister and his officials agree it is a rare occurrence for local authorities to act in a manner contrary to the expressed wishes of the Minister who made it clear he did not want disconnection except under clearly defined and outlined circumstances.
This Bill is unnecessary as confirmed by the Minister's figures as only 0.02 per cent of those connected to the public water supply were disconnected. It was mentioned that the local authority in my area used the threat of disconnection but in my experience, except on the vary rare occasion a mistake was made, the disconnections were justified. The people concerned were two or three years in arrears and generally they could afford to pay. In County Meath the local authority had a system whereby people who lived in local authority houses or were on low incomes availed of a waiver or an instalment system and every facility was given to allow people to pay. The Minister will be aware that local representatives spent a great deal of time making appeals to the local authority for people threatened with disconnection. The Minister will agree disconnections were not commonplace and that, therefore, this Bill is not necessary. I do not have any knowledge that local authorities were abusing their powers and there are ways to tackle the problem apart from tying the system up for years.
Deputy Ferris commented on the waiver system and I acknowledge that the Minister amended his proposal. I agree the waiver system will benefit from standardisation but section 3 (4) may have a contrary effect to what the Minister intends. In considering whether to grant an order under section 3 (2), the court shall have regard to the personal and household circumstances of the consumer but under section 3 (5) a sanitary authority will not be allowed to disconnect where a waiver has been granted. It is wrong that the system should allow the courts to decide the circumstances of a waiver. I believe the effect of section 3 (5) will be contrary to what is expected and that local authorities who are reasonable in granting waivers — my local authority grants a waiver of almost 50 per cent to households with only a social welfare income — will err on the side of not granting it because if they do they will not have the ultimate sanction as heretofore of disconnecting the water if the person defaults. That is wrong and the Minister should reconsider it.
This is the core issue but I am not convinced that the Minister has tackled the problem.
The bottom line is that if a service is to be provided it must be paid for. There is no such thing as a free service unless people believe in Santa Claus.
In certain parts of Dublin there is an indirect system and people do not pay directly for the service whereas by and large in the rest of the country a levy is placed on the householder. People are quite happy with the water, sewage disposal and refuse collection service. However, when they see that those in the greater Dublin area enjoy free services it causes annoyance. As the people in Dublin appear to be getting the services free, the rest of the country feel entitled to the same. The cost of services in Dublin are met by the taxpayer and, therefore, I must be making a contribution, which I have no wish to do.
As Deputy Dempsey rightly pointed out, local authorities are well aware of the circumstances of the people in their area. The waiver system has worked well in Cavan County Council with no major problems. In all walks of life there are people who do not want to pay even though they can well afford it and have money for everything else. If it is proposed to have an indirect system to meet service charges it should be nationwide, otherwise everyone should pay with a waiver provision in hardship cases. I think the number of cases that will go to court will be minimal and that those who end up in court will deserve it.
Recently a local group scheme took a number of householders to court in Roscommon for non-payment of their contribution but the district justice's decision was that the group water scheme had no authority to collect. Who will pay for the provision of this group water scheme? Will the Minister clarify whether the judge is right and that these people do not have the authority to collect the money? If so, legislation must be introduced to regularise matters. Group water schemes have provided an excellent service nationwide. The community came together and, with the assistance of EU and departmental grant aid and the local contribution, a water source was identified, reservoirs were constructed and the water was piped to all households in the scheme. This service was comparable to that available in towns and villages and people were happy with and willing to pay for its ongoing maintenance. If there is an inkling that people do not have to contribute annually to the group water scheme it will spread like wildfire. That would be unfair to the people who have worked hard and spent sleepless nights worrying about the scheme but you cannot have a system where some in the group pay and others do not. If everybody pays, it will be a small cost on every household. While this point is not directly relevant to the debate I ask the Minister to take it on board as this is my only opportunity to raise this very serious issue which needs to be addressed.
There is nothing like responsibility to concentrate the mind and the members of Democratic Left had to concentrate their minds very quickly on coming into office. When in Opposition they espoused a ridiculous policy — which went down very well with the electorate during the early stages — that one did not have to pay for local authority services. I appreciate the difficult position in which the Minister finds himself in trying to meet the demands of Democratic Left on this issue but I am surprised he has given in to it in this way.
The funding of local government is a thorny issue which has caused problems throughout the country. The introduction of local charges, which amount to approximately £50 million, gave local authorities some flexibility in raising finance. However, under the legislation it will be impossible for them to collect this money. There is no point in giving them this facility if we do not allow them to collect the charges. If the ESB and Telecom Éireann had to operate under this restriction they would find it impossible to collect charges.
Even though the old scheme caused problems in the early stages there was very little wrong with it. In some cases people were not asked to pay charges but as people were brought into the net they realised it was a good service which gave them value for money. After the enactment of this Bill people would be mad to pay the charges. I am sure the Minister was happy with his performance in the Department of Health but this proposal is crazy. If he was in office for the next 50 years he could not bring before the House a more ridiculous and unnecessary measure.
I will try to remain in office for as long as the Deputy wishes.
I congratulate the Minister on the fantastic work he did in the Departments of Health and the Environment. Time will show that his record is second to none. Deputy Smith said it should be left to local authorities to come up with a waiver system which meets their requirements. While there is a certain validity in that argument, given the points made by the Minister there is merit in setting out basic guidelines. It is not the prerogative of councillors and local elected representatives to devise a waiver system. They can make recommendations but at the end of the day, it is the manager who devises the system. In my local authority area a couple in receipt of a non-contributory old age pension can have charges waived while a couple in receipt of a contributory old age pension cannot have charges waived. If they have no other income old age pensioners should not be required to pay charges. I ask the Minister to set out basic guidelines to which local authorities can add if they so wish.
All speakers have referred to the major issue of financing local authorities. I have difficulty with a system which does not impose a statutory requirement on the Minister of the day to maintain the level of the rate support grants paid to local authorities. Since the 1980s successive Governments have reduced the level of the rate support grants and, with the exception of the Dublin area, a part of the local contribution has had to be used to make up the shortfall in the contribution from central taxation. For example, some of the charges for roads are used to pay wages and salaries. This is totally unacceptable and the rate support grant scheme should be put on a statutory basis so that local authorities know where they stand.
I commend the Minister on his commitment — the previous Government gave a similar commitment — to look at the reorganisation and financing of local government. We need a local government system in which people can have confidence and I hope this can be brought about as a result of the professional study commissioned by the Government. The financing of local government has been a political hot potato: parties put forward certain proposals in Government and totally different proposals in Opposition. Most Deputies are members of local authorities and we are all aware of the major problems in funding. I appeal to all parties to adopt a positive approach to this issue. There will be a different Government in a few years time——
Is the Deputy getting ready to return to Opposition?
——and it is incumbent on us to put in place a system of financing for local government in which people can have confidence and which will provide the services required. Such a system might be tougher than the present one but we should at least have the guts to put an alternative system to the people. The Minister has shown he has the commitment to do this and I appeal to all parties to row in behind him.
I have always supported service charges regardless of what Government was in office. One hour's drive down the road from where I live, people in Northern Ireland pay £1,000, £500 and £400 rates on their houses. Those who live in the wealthier areas probably pay twice as much rates as those who live in poorer areas. Yet here we crib about paying a small amount for service charges, basically to provide water. We have service charges in Sligo for water and sewerage services and we have a privatised refuse collection.
In future service charges should be part of the weekly or monthly rent for local authority houses. It may be difficult for local authority tenants to find a cheque for £100 or more, but if they pay, perhaps, £2 per week service charges with the rent it is much easier. A decision on this issue will have to come from this House rather than at county council level.
Previous speakers made sensible contributions but no local authority can survive nowdays without some type of service charge. Deputy Seán Ryan talked about introducing a system of proper financing for local government. That is difficult because if we introduce a rates support grant it will have to be paid for by taxpayers. It is difficult for us to strike a rate in Sligo when we read that service charges are not being paid in the greater part of the city of Dublin where they collect massive rates from big stores, factories and so on. In a small county such as Sligo the people in the towns of Ballymote, Tubbercurry and Collooney are the only people on whom the rates can be increased. The considerable amount of money taken in from the larger town of Sligo goes to Sligo Corporation. Some of it should be distributed around the county. In County Sligo one of our only means of finance is to increase service charges each year. I am totally opposed to that because our service charge for water already is £100. It is difficult to ask people to pay more than that.
I am pleased the Minister will not completely abolish service charges because that would be a step in the wrong direction. I hope solicitors and lawyers will not make huge sums of money in taking cases to court and that it will not cost the local authority or the people they are taking to court a great deal of money.
Deputy Quill commented that she perceives all-party agreement on this thorny issue which has been a matter of political contention for a considerable number of years. We cannot write into any Bill the right of an individual party to hold its own position. Every political party will put its proposals to the people on the occasion of the next election and the people will return Deputies to this House as they see fit. What has been worked out in the context of Government and what I am obliged to introduce is the negotiated agreement between three separate parties. The views of all parties are not the same; if they were we would have one party.
I was part of the team that hammered out an agreement to arrive at an acceptable programme to bring this country forward. I had the privilege of being a member of an earlier team that negotiated the original Programme for Government between Fianna Fáil and Labour. As Deputies Dempsey, Matt Brennan and others are aware there was not a unanimous agreement between Fianna Fáil and Labour on all issues. Instead we had an accommodation, an agreement with which both parties could live.
The former Minister, Deputy Michael Smith, was characteristically disarmingly frank and honest in his Second Stage contribution. This measure is the result of negotiation; it is not necessarily one I would have drawn up from a Labour Party perspective nor one that would have been put forward from a Democratic Left perspective nor one that Fine Gael would necessarily have crafted to reflect its policies. I am happy with the accommodation. It holds the principles that allow local authorities to continue with their important work of serving their local communities and it provides them with a base for raising local charges if that is their intention.
Several Deputies have been slightly schizophrenic in demanding autonomy for local authorities and saying we should devolve functions to them and give them as much freedom and power as possible. At the same time they referred to differences between local authorities. One cannot have it both ways. If power is given to local authorities to make decisions they will not all make a uniform decision as their circumstances are not the same. I envisage in the future, even in a reformed system of local authority funding, that different proposals for local government will be put forward by various parties seeking election and the programme put in place will reflect the votes and decisions of the people in that area. Local democracy is about diversity and difference.
I thank Deputy Dempsey for his compliment to me on the presentation of the Bill. It is a good effort at reforming the system to allow a degree of transparency and regulation without damaging the system.
This Bill will not damage the local government system as can be seen from the returns to date since the implementation of the measures by way of circular letter in April. As Deputy Dempsey may be already aware, in County Meath income from charges for the period January to end June is up 10 per cent or £78,000 on the same period last year. This is welcome and the pattern is repeated in many counties across the country.
It should be accepted and understood that the enactment of this Bill will not lead to the system of charges being brought to an end. I do not agree, therefore, with Deputy Dempsey's contention that it is not needed and there are other ways to tackle the matter. It is our function, as legislators, to legislate. I see no harm in formalising the regulations in statute law. Neither do I accept, on the question of waivers provided for in section 3, the local authorities will be less generous because of a fear that if someone is granted a waiver, they may decide not to pay anything more. There are other ways of pursuing the debt. It would not be appropriate to cut off supplies.
It would be more expensive to take them to court.
Deputy Boylan raised the question of local autonomy and said everyone should be treated the same way. Local autonomy means diversity. If a common approach was adopted by all local authorities, we would not have a local authority but a national system.
Deputy Power said he was surprised I had given in to Democratic Left. It was not a question of giving in to anybody; the Programme for Government was designed to sit happily on the policies of the parties in Government. That is the reason this legislative measure has the support of each of its constituent parts. It will have broad support among the general public.
Deputy Sean Ryan raised the question of the waiver system and said there was a need for general guidelines. I agree with him and I am formulating such guidelines to ensure a consistent approach is adopted. Some local authorities have decided that old age pensioners, for example, should have their service charges reduced to £5 while others grant a 50 per cent reduction. Old age penioners on fixed income set by the State should not be placed at a disadvantage. I will consider that matter.
The Deputy also raised the question of local authority funding. Lest anyone be under an illusion there are no easy options and there is no Santa Claus. Neither the professional study, any Member, nor I will devise a scheme that will allow local authorities to thrive on fresh air; someone will have to meet the cost. As a community, there are a number of fundamental questions we have to answer. I have posed these questions to local authorities, at county and regional level. The Deputies opposite now have an opportunity to engage in this process.
We can decide that we want an effective local government system and devise a mechanism to pay for it or we can abandon this hope for all time. There is a new maturity in Irish politics which gives us a window of opportunity. It is my ambition to publish a White Paper on this issue next year. I will seek the broadest possible consensus across the House and country to reform the funding base of local authorities.
I sincerely hope that no political party will seek to make political capital by destroying any prospective new system of local government funding before it is put in place. If we believe in local government, we should try to build a consensus. As Deputy Ryan rightly said, all parties will at some stage be in Government and Opposition. They should not use their time in Opposition to be destructive exclusively. Judging from many of the comments made by Members of the main Opposition party that is not its tack. It seems that it will be pro-active and positive. I look forward to that debate. It will be a difficult road but it is one I am determined to lead people down so long as I receive support from the political institutions and the general public.
Deputy Mattie Brennan put forward the notion that service charges should be absorbed into the rent payment. That is a good idea, some local authorities already do this. If the charge amounts to £100, the rent payment is increased by £2 per week. I would encourage those local authorities who do not do this to do so to ensure that no one is faced with a large bill at the end of the year because of the strain this would put on their finances.
Deputy Boylan referred to the recent decision in the District Court on group water schemes and the legal difficulties encountered in collecting moneys. For the information of the House, that decision has been appealed to the High Court. It would be inappropriate of me, therefore, to comment until the matter has been finalised.
The Minister said it was his hope that political parties would not try to make capital on the question of local government funding. I am in a better position than most to comment on the question of service charges as I have always favoured their introduction in the belief that local authorities would not be able to survive without them. This issue has been the source of much frustration and annoyance year after year with individuals and groups advocating that people should not pay them. Monaghan County Council would not be able to operate without these charges.
When we have reached the point where it is accepted that the amount collected is not adequate and the charges must be paid, the Government is giving people the opportunity not to pay. It should be remembered that people are quick to seize an opportunity when they do not want to meet their commitments. If someone decides not to pay, the postman may have to deliver up to six letters from the local authority before action is taken.
A sum of between £50 million and £60 million is collected by way of these charges. The number of householders who have been disconnected down the years is very small. People will cash in on this measure in years to come. Even those who have paid will play for time and seek an extension. This is a bad decision and it will come back to haunt the Minister.
The Minister mentioned that the funding base of local authorities is to be reformed——
The Deputy's speech is broadening into other areas.
The Minister said that he will probably introduce it shortly. An election is due to be held in a few years time so I doubt that a Minister with responsibility for local government will be happy to introduce such legislation very quickly.
I reject the Deputy's comment. As I have already explained, this Bill will not give people an opportunity not to pay. Since the measure was announced in the programme for Government early this year and since it has been enforced by regulation in April, the income from charges has increased. The collection rate across the country has increased. That is the reality. It has not had the gloomy effect that has repeatedly been claimed by Opposition Deputies. That is simply not a fact.
I repeat, for the eighth or ninth time, that it is not about sending postmen running hither and thither. There will be a system of notification which will include a demand and two subsequent reminders. The two reminders can include a warning that disconnection may ensue. That is a total of three letters, not six. There will also be determination by the local authority that it will seek a court order. I am proposing a reasonably efficient system. It removes doubt from the local authority's perspective. The local authority need not wonder if it has given enough notice or if another six, two or 22 letters should be sent. I am saying what is the right number. The Oireachtas is speaking in this matter.
It is a fair system. It will give due notice to consumers that they have to pay their bills or explain themselves to the courts. That is an improvement. Any order that is given for disconnection will have stronger validity because it will have the force of a court order, and not just statute, behind it.
Section 3, as amended, agreed to.
Section 4 agreed to.
SECTION 5.
Question proposed: "That section 5 stand part of the Bill."
The point I wish to raise has already been mentioned by the Minister, under section 3, in response to Deputy Boylan. It relates to group water schemes and the problem that has been caused by a decision of a District Justice about a case in Roscommon.
I do not wish to put the Minister in an awkward position in relation to this matter in view of the fact that the decision is being appealed. However, perhaps the Minister would consider amending section 5 by inserting after the words "by the sanitary authority" the phrase "or by a body or authority designated by such sanitary authority". This would ensure that, irrespective of what happens in the other case, the Minister would clearly state in this Bill that a local authority could allocate its functions vis-á-vis the provision of water to a body such as a group water scheme. That is, in effect, what happens at present. That body would have the same status for disconnection purposes, even if it had to go through the same procedure, as a local authority.
I realise the Minister might have a difficulty with such an amendment at this late stage. Perhaps he might consider amending the Bill in the Seanad, although I am aware of the problem he might have in that regard as well. However, the House will reconvene at a later date in July. If the Minister can agree to such an amendment or to a similar amendment, this side of the House would not cause any problems.
Deputy Dempsey has raised an important issue. I do not want to try to solve an extraneous issue in this legislation, which has a narrow focus. The Bill does not give group water scheme trustees the right to disconnect. It does not deal with them. I believe the other matter will resolve itself through the judicial system. If there is still a difficulty at the end of that due process, I will come back to the House to seek a legislative solution.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 6 and 7 agreed to.
SCHEDULE.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 6, line 13, to delete "him" and substitute "the consumer".
The reason for this amendment is that the Department of the Environment has erred in its gender proofing.
Amendment agreed to.
Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments and received for final consideration.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
I thank Deputies for their co-operation in taking this Bill expeditiously today.
We oppose this measure. We do not regard it as being necessary. I do not wish to rehash the arguments we made.
Have I not convinced the Deputy?
The Minister has not.
Question put and agreed to.