Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 2 Jul 2015

Vol. 885 No. 3

Environment (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2014: Report Stage (Resumed)

Bill recommitted in respect of amendments Nos. 1 and 2.

Debate resumed on amendment No. 2:

In page 5, line 8, to delete “and the” and substitute “, the”.

-(Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Paudie Coffey).

Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government (Deputy Paudie Coffey)

It is apt that Deputy Paul Murphy is in the Chamber because yesterday he made some points about the possibility of Irish Water being privatised. I will clarify the position for his benefit and that of the House.

The Government has consistently stated the supply of water and wastewater will remain in public ownership. This principle was enshrined in the Water Services Act 2007 and reaffirmed in the Water Services (No. 2) Act 2013. The 2013 Act prohibits the shareholders of Irish Water, the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, the Minister for Finance and the board of Irish Water, from disposing of their shares. The Government believes the public ownership of water services is the will of the people and introduced further legislation in the Water Services Act 2014 to ensure that if any future Government sought to change this position, it would be required to put the matter before the electorate in a plebiscite. That is provided for in the Bill. We have been accused of creating smokescreens, but using the red herring of privatisation is a smokescreen.

This point does not refer specifically to the amendment, but that is where the focus should be. As I stated on numerous occasions yesterday during the debate on these amendments which took up almost four hours, I am surprised Deputies say they are not being given enough time to discuss the Bill. They spent four hours in a repetitive and disruptive session yesterday, but if they choose to do so, there will be ample opportunities to discuss all of the amendments tabled.

Deputy Paul Murphy

I will start by responding to the comments made by the Minister of State on the character of the debate. It seems that some terms are being conflated or, at any rate, bloated. Last night in raising a point of order there was a reference to "fascism" and today we have heard a reference to a "disruptive debate". I encourage anybody watching to read the transcript or watch the debate we had on a very important group of amendments, one in particular and the others which pivot around it. Anybody who does this will see that it was not disruptive. The Government's problem is that it considers democratic debate to be disruptive. It considers it disruptive to raise questions. It also considers democracy, as in the case of Greece, to be disruptive. I reject the notion that any of the debate was in any sense disruptive. We are trying to get to the bottom of this matter, but the Minister of State did not help us in the course of that four hour debate. He did not explain why more money was being transferred in one step from the local government fund to the Exchequer and, in another, from the Exchequer to Irish Water, nor did he justify it.

This is connected to the point about privatisation, about which the Minister of State spoke, because it relates to the fattening of Irish Water in preparation for its future privatisation. The idea that we should take the Minister's and the Government's word that they are not going to privatise it stretches credibility in terms of our role as Opposition Deputies and the history of politics in this country and of water charges, in particular. One of the two parties in government was elected on a platform of opposing water charges; nobody is paying them, but the Government is trying to implement them. We do not accept its promises. Should we accept the provision in the legislation, as it stands, that should a future Government want to privatise Irish Water, it would have to hold a plebiscite? Is that a guarantee against privatisation? The answer is no, not at all. On the one hand, a Government which wanted to privatise could hold and lose a plebiscite and subsequently, on the other, legally, sell off as there would be no obligation to follow the outcome of the plebiscite. Is it not the case that a future Dáil would be free to amend the legislation to remove the requirement for a plebiscite? I ask the Minister of State to come back on this point and be very clear on it. Each Dáil is sovereign and has the right to do whatever it likes from one day to the next. This Dáil cannot constitutionally bind a future Dáil to holding a plebiscite.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Alan Farrell)

On the amendment, please.

Deputy Paul Murphy

I am responding to the points the Minister of State made about privatisation. It is another empty promise from the Government. The Minister did not answer the points about the privatisation which is happening now, never mind that might potentially happen in the future. This is privatisation from below, with the design, build and operate contracts going to major multinational water companies, some of the biggest in the world that are interested in profit.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Alan Farrell)

On the amendment, please.

Deputy Paul Murphy

That is my response to what the Minister of State was saying.

I will speak to amendment No. 1 in my name to amendment No. 20. It is a very clear amendment, tabled by me and Deputies Joe Higgins and Ruth Coppinger. We propose, in the third line of paragraph (a), proposed to be inserted by section 42(a), to delete the words "or more than one". Currently the amendment reads, "Subject to paragraphs (b) and (c), the Minister may, on or before 31 December 2015, pursuant to a request from the Minister for Finance, make one, or more than one, payment from the Fund in the amount requested by the Minister for Finance". Why on earth do the Government and the Minister want to have the ability to make multiple payments from the local government fund to the Exchequer that can, in turn, be handed over to Irish Water? Why would there be a need for more than one payment and why can the Government not accept the amendment in order that, at the very least, only one transfer could be made? The Government has not made any reference previously to more than one payment being made. How many transfers does it intend to make in 2015? How many does it intend to make in 2016, 2017, 2018 and onwards? This is a very important question which the Government has failed to answer.

The second amendment to amendment No. 20 has also been tabled by me and Deputies Ruth Coppinger and Joe Higgins.

We propose, in the fourth line of paragraph (a), proposed to be inserted by section 42(a), after "Finance", to insert "and approved by both Houses of the Oireachtas". Currently, it states that it can make one or more than one payment from the fund in the amount requested by the Minister for Finance. We would add the words "and approved by both Houses of the Oireachtas". That is a democratic check and accountability. It is saying that we will not today, later this evening, or whenever, sign up and give the power to the Minister to make one, more than one or 100 transfers as he or she, a he in this case, may wish. Instead, we are saying it would have to come before the Houses of the Oireachtas.

What is the problem? Why is the Government so scared of democracy? Why is it so scared of having this debate in a proper manner? Why is it so scared of having the ability of this House to debate the making of a payment? Why should the Dáil and the Seanad not have the right to examine the transfer of this serious amount of money? Why should we give the Minister for Finance carte blanche without a reference back to the Houses of the Oireachtas? This is a reasonable amendment. It is reasonable for the Government to accept it but instead it proposes not to do so. Unfortunately, this demonstrates the kind of respect which has and is being shown to democratic procedure in the course of this debate. It has also been demonstrated by the Government in its proposal regarding the power of the Minister for Finance in this area.

The third amendment Deputies Coppinger and Higgins and I have tabled is, in the second line of paragraph (c), proposed to be inserted by section 42(b), to delete "€540 million" and substitute "€1". The Government's amendment states, "The total amount of all payments made under paragraph (a) shall not exceed €540 million." We propose to change that to read, "The total amount of all payments made under paragraph (a) shall not exceed €1." The reason for that amendment is very simple. We do not believe that half a billion euro should be taken from the local government fund, handed to the Exchequer to, in turn, be handed to Irish Water. We are opposed to the section as a whole, but if a transfer has to be made, it should be a transfer of €1. How can the Government justify pumping more money - €500 million of car tax and other Exchequer funds - into the beast that is Irish Water? How can the Government justify it when it is trying to get people to pay water charges by using the rationale that they have not already paid them? The Minister interestingly admitted yesterday evening that they had paid them.

How can the Government justify that huge amount of money and transfer? Is it justified by the fact that payment levels are lower than previously expected or that they are effectively on the floor? Perhaps payment levels are below 50% and that is why the Government and Irish Water are refusing to give those figures despite our repeated requests. Why can the Government not accept that if it needs to make a transfer, it can make a transfer of up to €1 rather than €540 million? With our amendment the Government could make a transfer of less than €1. If it needed 50 cent, 60 cent or 70 cent, that transfer could be made within the framework of the amendment we have tabled. The Government has not put forward a good, clear argument as to why it has rejected that amendment at this stage. I am very interested to hear the Government's response and to respond to it in turn.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Alan Farrell)

I thank Deputy Murphy. This debate has gone on for four hours and I have been fortunate enough to be in the Chair for just under two hours of it. I remind the Deputies that they do not have a time limit, and that they are aware of that fact, but will they try their best not to be repetitive? Not wanting to isolate any particular Deputy, I have heard Deputy Murphy's contribution three times during the course of this debate.

Deputy Paul Murphy

It is the central issue but we have not got an answer.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Alan Farrell)

It might be helpful to Deputies if we were to enact some democratic procedures and have a division on this matter to finalise it.

Deputy Paul Murphy

Let us go to Committee Stage.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Alan Farrell)

I will allow Deputy Ó Cuív speak.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

We face a particular problem here. When I was a Minister the Opposition often came up with valid points or, as the debate developed, I as Minister would think something was possibly not well put and that it could be improved. I would reflect after Committee Stage-----

Acting Chairman (Deputy Alan Farrell)

Will the Deputy, please, refer to the amendment?

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

This is relevant.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Alan Farrell)

The Deputy must speak to the amendment. We have been doing this for four hours, so I ask him to keep to the amendment.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

I am coming to the amendment. What I then did was I went off and reflected-----

Acting Chairman (Deputy Alan Farrell)

Deputy Ó Cuív is ignoring me.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

----and came back on Report Stage with amendments. I want to apologise for not being here for the beginning of the debate, but I was attending a Whips' meeting, where I tried to put forward an idea that would lead to a better Bill and better enacted legislation. It was quite simple. We would take Committee Stage today-----

Acting Chairman (Deputy Alan Farrell)

Again I ask Deputy Ó Cuív to refer to the specific amendments.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

I am coming to them.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Alan Farrell)

It would be helpful if Deputy Ó Cuív told me the amendment to which he is referring.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

The Chairman is only delaying me.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Alan Farrell)

Will the Deputy, please, keep to the amendment.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

I am not repeating myself.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Alan Farrell)

Deputy Ó Cuív is.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

We could then come in next week or the week after and do a standard report at which stage the Minister of State would have listened to the debate, which is the idea behind the procedures in this House, and could suggest amendments. Yesterday evening I asked the Minister of State whether I am correct in understanding that what this amendment seeks to do is give the Government the power to transfer up to €540 million from the local government fund to the Exchequer this year, which money I understand in practice would then be sent to Irish Water in lieu of the money which used to go directly to the local authorities for water and sewage. When the Minister of State transfers the amount in question will there be a euro for euro transfer of money from the Exchequer, that is, his Department's Vote, to Irish Water? Is that what is intended?

The second matter which is germane here is that it is very unusual for legislation, where a situation is to be ongoing, not to provide for it into the future. In other words, if the Government thinks there will be further transfers from the local government fund to the Exchequer next year and in subsequent years, it is unusual that the Bill would not provide for it. It would mean the Government will have to come back in again next year with primary legislation and go through this whole process all over again. That is highly unusual.

We need clear answers so that we can make our mind up on the amendment. Is it unforeseen that there will be further transfers from the local government fund next year to the Exchequer? What valid reason in legislative process has the Government given for not providing for it in the legislation? For example, why does the section not read, "Subject to paragraphs (b) and (c), the Minister may, on or before 31 December 2015 [and in subsequent years], pursuant to a request from the Minister for Finance, make one, or more than one, payment from the Fund in the amount requested by the Minister for Finance." I have no problem with more than one payment because whatever sum one arrives at, it does not matter if it is in ten payments or two payments, it is the same sum of money. The amendment goes on to say that the sum cannot be more than €540 million. Can the Minister of State explain why it does not provide for a payment in 2015 and on an annual basis in subsequent years?

I do not understand and would not support Deputy Murphy's first amendment to this Government amendment. I do not understand his objection to payments in instalments. The total sum will be the same amount of money. His amendment is unnecessarily constraining. I presume the reason for it, and the Minister of State might clarify the issue, relates to allowing for the possibility of transferring, say, €300 million but deciding later in the year that Uisce Éireann needed more money and then transferring a further sum.

The Government might decide that its capital programme had gone faster than anticipated and it could spend money usefully in upgrading the pipes, for example. We would all welcome that. I have no problem in the ability to transfer money as the Government needs it. That makes sense, and if I was in the Minister's shoes, I would like that facility. However, this is a contentious issue and given the structure by which the Government is doing it, I must support amendment No 2. It provides that as the Government transfers money, it would have to come back to the Houses of the Oireachtas. That makes a good deal of sense and I call on the Minister of State to accept it. I believe it would allay suspicion. The more we are open and transparent in respect of water, the better. The more the fanciful rumours going around can be allayed, the better. People who are secretive about their business always encourage paranoia, even when it is unfounded.

Amendment No. 3 is tabled by the two Deputies Murphy. We could substitute €1 million for €540 million but in the greater scheme of things €1 million would not do much. It is such a small proportion of what the Government seems to require. If that is what the Government believes, it would be far better to have tabled an amendment to delete the section and simply oppose the section in total. Effectively €1 million is not worth a candle here. I cannot agree with it because if the Government did not give money - money was always given from the local government fund to Uisce Éireann - the organisation would be rather short of funds. Basically, what the Government is doing, although it is going around the mountain to do it, amounts to providing money from the local government fund for the provision of water and sewerage services in the country. Can the Minister of State confirm that de facto this is what the Government is doing, albeit in a two-step process? Can the Minister of State confirm the Government will have to come back with new legislation if it wishes to transfer money next year? Does the Government expect to seek such a transfer next year and in subsequent years? Will the Minister of State explain why the legislation does not provide for that? Will the Minister of State confirm whether the money going from the local government fund to the Exchequer will be passed on, euro for euro, from the Exchequer or the Department's Vote to Uisce Éireann or will it be held in the central coffers of the Department and used for other purposes? I hope I get clear answers.

Again, I apologise for not being in the House at the beginning of the debate. I imagine the Minister of State understands that even Fianna Fáil people cannot be in two places at the one time.

Deputy Brian Stanley

We are dealing with three amendments. The most substantial, amendment No. 20, has serious implications. The problem with the amendment is that the public knows at this stage what is happening and what has been happening to date. They have been following the succession of money transferred in one form or another, whether the €540 million from the National Pensions Reserve Fund, the €500 million loan that is now being transferred onto the State's balance sheet, which flies in the face of the reason Irish Water was set up in the first place, or the write-off of €59 million in rates to local authorities. Of course, local authorities will have to pick up the tab for that. Who funds the local authorities? It is Joe Public. Joe Public has to pick up the tab.

Throughout last year and the year before I tried to find out the different funding streams and methods of funding for this corporate monster we call Uisce Éireann. Some of the earlier answers were as clear as mud and diversionary. They were not in any way clear. Instead of getting figures for one year we got figures grouped together covering more than a year.

The point is that the total sum going over comprises a handsome amount. The Government is presenting an amendment to the effect that a figure shall be transferred over not exceeding €540 million. I presume this €540 million is for the current year and that it serves to cover the cost of the €399 million that is on the State's balance sheet which went to Irish Water for operational costs and the €222 million in capital costs. The water conservation grant is separate and will come out of the social protection budget. As I recall it, that figure was not in the social protection budget last year when it was being put together, but I am open to correction on that. If it was not and if up to €130 million has to come out of the social protection budget, where does that leave the shortfall in social protection funding?

Let us add together everything transferred back onto the State's balance sheet. This is why I am concerned about the €540 million. The figure includes the €500 million loan that the Government transferred onto the State's balance sheet in December and €59 million in rates, for which local authorities will take the hit. This brings us to €559 million. There is a further €399 million subvention for operational costs, €222 million for capital subvention and €130 million for the water conservation grant. It is not a water conservation grant; it is simply a carrot or inducement. The Government knows it must have incentives tied in to such a grant for it to operate. The millionaires can fill their swimming pools ten times over every day and still receive that grant.

Is the €540 million a once-off payment? It is in this legislation. That is what it looks and feels like. Is it the case that the Government will come back next year to look for a further €540 million or €640 million? That is the question.

The public is concerned because there is a correlation between what is spent and what the public will have to cough up some day. That day will probably come sooner rather than later, because the legislation setting out the charges can be changed.

The energy regulator was moved to one side. Effectively, the Government pushed the regulator out of the way. In the past six months €1.31 billion is what all this money amounts to. That does not include the €540 million for the meters and the €300 million borrowed for capital works, borrowed on the private markets at a higher interest rate than borrowing on the State's balance sheet. When we add these to the figure, we are almost up to €2 billion. If this amendment is passed and the €540 million is waved through using the Government majority, will it leave the way open for the Government to come back next year looking for a further figure, or is this a once-off arrangement? That is the question. The public knows all this money has gone across and they know what is yet to go. Even if we take out the costs of meters, it comes to €1.61 billion according to the Government figures. That is what the figure amounts to at this stage.

That is now on the State’s balance sheet. Any answer one gets in this regard cannot change that, it is in the legislation. The €59 million rates shortfall must be made up by the public, as must the €399 million subvention for operational costs and the €222 million for capital costs. The money for the water conservation grant will come in taxation. I have no problem paying that tax.

Deputy Paudie Coffey

The Deputy is opposed to it.

Deputy Brian Stanley

I have absolutely no problem paying that tax but the Government hands it out with one hand and-----

Deputy Paudie Coffey

The Deputy forgot about the rural dwellers.

Deputy Brian Stanley

I wish the Government were using it for something more useful.

Deputy Paudie Coffey

The Deputy forgot about the rural dwellers.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Alan Farrell)

On the amendment, please.

Deputy Brian Stanley

I have a suggestion for the Minister of State.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Alan Farrell)

On the amendment, please.

Deputy Brian Stanley

I have a straightforward suggestion for him, namely, that he take the €130 million, or a large part thereof, and give it in the form of a subvention to some of the rural group water schemes.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Alan Farrell)

Deputy Stanley should speak to the amendment.

Deputy Brian Stanley

The group water schemes that have been connected to the Uisce Éireann network will be waiting for the Minister of State when he goes canvassing in the rural areas. I hope he knows that.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Alan Farrell)

We were talking about septic tanks in this debate yesterday.

Deputy Brian Stanley

I am talking about the mains supply here.

If the Government has €130 million floating about the place and is wondering what to do with it-----

Deputy Paudie Coffey

Does the Deputy want us to cancel the grant?

Deputy Brian Stanley

-----it could use it as a subvention for people who need to improve their water supply but not in the bogus way that is proposed, which is not improving anything. One can twist this whatever where one likes. The fact is that one does not have to do anything for the grant. Any Member of this House can claim the grant, which is ludicrous. The problem with the grant is that one does not have to do anything for it. However, if it were available for a specific purpose, such as improving water supply, it would make more sense. It depends on whether the Government has this money. It must have it because it has been put into the accounts. The Government can twist and wriggle on the spit whatever way it wants with the €130 million, but the fact is that it could use the money for real water conservation or real improvements. It could actually offer a water conservation grant to save water if conditions A, B and C were met. The Government has not done that. What it is doing is dishing out the money like confetti as a carrot. Of course, the public knows that behind every carrot there is a big stick, and the stick is normally bigger than the carrot.

The question of the €540 million must be addressed. Here we go again. With the Bill before Christmas, the Government moved €500 million across onto the State's balance sheet. With this amendment, it is going to pilfer €540 million again. Is this the final step or is the door open to do this next year? Can the Minister of State confirm he will not do this next year?

Deputy Ruth Coppinger

The amendment that the Minister is proposing relates to the funding of Irish Water. I have questions on this that need to be examined. If this were Committee Stage, we would be dissecting how Irish Water is to be funded. Why are we carrying out the transfer in advance of seeing what is obtained from the payment of the water charges, for example? How do we even know that the €540 million will be required? Perhaps a 100% payment will be received from the water charges, for example, or at least 70% based on registration, and the Government will not require the €540 million. I believe this step is premature. I am sure the Minister is trustworthy but what about future Ministers who might use this very powerful instrument without any reference to the Oireachtas? Our amendment proposes that both Houses of the Oireachtas would have to approve any transfer of funds from the taxpayer to Irish Water. Clearly it is a question for the taxpayer.

The Minister of State made a point last night that I believe is very useful. This debate might not be useful in many ways but the Minister of State did make some points in which he verified that what is happening is not new. Car tax has been used in the past to pay for water services. Anti-water charges campaigners and many others have been saying this for a while. How much was used in the past? We need this kind of information. Is the amount under discussion an increased amount? How would it compare with when local authorities controlled their own water services? The Minister of State may correct me if I am wrong but my information is that water services generally cost €1.2 billion to supply from the sky to the tap in Ireland. Some €0.2 billion came from businesses and the rest was provided through general taxation. Therefore, €1 billion was derived in the past from car tax and other local government funding. The Government is now asking for €500 million but there was €500 million last year also. How is the other €500 million to be made up? One cannot get it from the water charges. There is no possible way that they would be sufficient. Will the Minister be coming back for more money later in the year to make up the other €1 billion? Those are questions that need to be answered. This is why the Minister should have given Deputies a chance to discuss this on Committee Stage.

I am opposed to the Minister having unilateral power without any reference to the Oireachtas. How does he envisage using this measure in the future? I, as a member of the environment committee, would have liked to have had a chance to discuss this on Committee Stage. We have not had Irish Water before the committee, only the Commission for Energy Regulation. We should have Irish Water in to show on PowerPoint slides how it envisages funding itself with the €540 million it has been given by the taxpayer. This is nice seed capital to start off a company. However, how will Irish Water make up the rest of the money? Apparently, there is a cap until 2017 or 2018, introduced by the Minister. There are so many unanswered questions. We should not be giving the money and handing the power to the Minister until we have answers to those questions.

The Minister, Deputy Kelly, spoke yesterday, as did the Minister of State, Deputy Paudie Coffey, and attacked Members on this side of the House for never coming up with solutions. We did come up with them and I will not repeat them. We proposed solutions several times because the Minister kept saying we were not proposing them. We outlined four mechanisms, including a wealth tax and a financial transactions tax. Imagine what would occur in respect of corporation tax. Imagine asking corporations such as Apple, Google, Starbucks, Facebook and all the companies lined up recently during the referendum campaign to pay the headline rate. However, we have made these points before and the Minister is not interested.

The Minister has introduced meters on footpaths in front of people's houses to gouge money out of them. As somebody said, it is a cash register on the pavement. That money could have been used to address the 47% of water unaccounted for through leaks that we know exist. This rate is very high. I was a member of a local authority for 11 years, and the Acting Chairman was also a member. Therefore, I note that some local authorities have made huge strides in reducing the rate to approximately 26%. Some local authorities, particularly in Dublin because authorities there may have had funding from commercial rates, etc., were able to upgrade their networks. There were some very simple steps taken. Sometimes the simple steps are what work. South Dublin County Council had a small team of inspectors going around at night listening for leaks with very simple equipment and fixing them. The Minister does not need to stick a meter in front of everyone's house to do that, and he never did. The Government should please stop pretending it has only discovered leaks through metering. Instead of investing in meters to take money off people, the money should have been invested to fix the network.

My other question, on funding, relates to how we will make up the rest of the €1 billion that is needed for Irish Water and the impact on the Department of Social Protection.

This is a very apt and fair question on the day when 30,000 lone parents will have money literally stolen from their children's mouths. What impact will this €100 bribe have on the Department of Social Protection? People are entitled to an answer. What are the repercussions of getting this money for the Department of Social Protection in the context of this funding proposal? Will the Department need extra staff? The Government must get this €100 into people's pockets before the election. That is critical. Will the Department need to take on extra staff to do it? Will staff be diverted from elsewhere, for example, lone parents or applications for disability benefits?

Acting Chairman (Deputy Alan Farrell)

The Deputy is straying from the amendment.

Deputy Ruth Coppinger

In fairness, it relates to funding.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Alan Farrell)

The Deputy is pushing the envelope.

Deputy Ruth Coppinger

Will staff have to be directed to do that? Every Deputy in this House understands the pain and anguish suffered by people waiting for verification that they have been granted these allowances from representations we get. Will people have to be diverted through paying the €100 grant to bribe people to register for water charges?

My last point concerns the local property tax and the local government fund. I am not an accountant or an economist but I have a basic knowledge of finance. I am still not clear whether the property tax is being used to fund Irish Water. We know motor tax is being used. It is not the case that 100% of property tax goes to local authorities. Some of it goes into a central fund. It appears that money from that central fund is being used to fund Irish Water. If that is the case, it is a deception perpetrated by this Government which pushed the property tax as a way of funding local authorities. The Minister of State needs to clarify this.

The other issue is the way councils have been put in a bind. We have all seen at annual budget meetings, because of the funding mechanism which the Government has changed, with some given to Irish water, the way councillors are put in a position where they are trying to decrease the property tax but by doing so they are cutting the amount of money they have for their own councils. The way this Government has handled the funding of local authorities and Irish Water has to be defended by it. Councillors are being told that they will make people homeless if they do not vote for increased property taxes. Next we will hear that there is no money for Irish Water if people do not increase the property tax. All of this has to be defended and explained by the Minister of State and he has not made any attempt to do so. We still do not have a transcript of his speech last night that we asked for, which I do not think is unreasonable. By the looks of it, there are only about four of us here who give a damn, so he could have got four copies printed and handed to us so we could at least scrutinise what he said. I would appreciate if that was done. Perhaps we could take a break in the same way we had to take a break yesterday.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Alan Farrell)

The Minister of State's speech is not provided on Report Stage but the Deputy can download it from the Internet. It is there right now.

Deputy Ruth Coppinger

I know. I was in here until 11 p.m. last night.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Alan Farrell)

As was I.

Deputy Ruth Coppinger

Downloading stuff has been very difficult. In any business and certainly in any committee on which I have ever served, things like that would be handed out in advance so people have a chance to scrutinise what the Minister is saying in asking for such big powers to shift €500 million over from motor tax that people paid-----

Acting Chairman (Deputy Alan Farrell)

Not on Report Stage.

Deputy Ruth Coppinger

Can the Minister of State also tell us whether motor tax will be increased again in the budget to fund Irish Water?

Acting Chairman (Deputy Alan Farrell)

On the amendment.

Deputy Ruth Coppinger

This is very relevant to the amendment.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Alan Farrell)

It is not directly related.

Deputy Ruth Coppinger

I bought a car in 2011.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Alan Farrell)

It is not related to the amendment.

Deputy Ruth Coppinger

Motor tax has doubled since I bought the car. Other people have also experienced that. They now find out that this money is not going to roads or to upgrade signage, which we are always told it does go to and that it is ring-fenced. Rather, it is going to Irish Water. The labyrinthine funding mechanisms for Irish Water really must be explained so I would like to hear what the Minister of State has to say

Deputy Patrick O'Donovan

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the amendment. I welcome the fact that a Bill I have been seeking for a considerable period of time is back in the House because, unlike previous speakers, I think there is a lot in this Bill that means an awful lot in terms of the creation of badly needed employment, including in my constituency. From that perspective, I welcome the fact that the Bill is now on Report Stage.

In respect of the amendment, if one accepts that water services were heretofore funded out of the local government fund, one must accept the fact that in establishing any kind of new utility or shared service, there is a requirement to transfer that portion of the local government fund that was ring-fenced up to now for the provision of water to the utility that will provide water. That is a very basic understanding and I find it difficult to understand why somebody cannot grasp the concept that if the local government fund is being used to provide a water service under the existing structure of local authorities and that function is no longer with the local authority, the funding stream should follow. An awful lot of people would be belly-aching in here if this was not the case. If a service was transferred from another Department or local authority into a new agency and the required level of funding did not follow, I am sure people would be hopping up and down in here.

Deputy Stanley was very articulate in summing up his opposition to the water conservation grant as it is currently constructed. In my constituency, and I am sure that of Deputy Stanley, a huge number of people pay for their water and have done so for years.

Deputy Ruth Coppinger

We all pay for it.

Deputy Patrick O'Donovan

I did not interrupt you so please spare me. A huge number of people pay for their water. The reason they do so is because if they did not come together as a group of citizens and provide a water service for themselves, nobody would do it for them. On the previous occasion we discussed water services, I said that there seems to be a wish among some Deputies to maintain apartheid in respect of people who live in rural locations who are deprived of basic services and must provide those services for themselves. I am speaking about the provision of water and refuse services, which were dismantled primarily because of a campaign that was led unsuccessfully by people who led the population up to the top of the hill, told them not to pay their refuse charges, abandoned them and then wondered how the service got privatised. Certain people must contribute to their own road maintenance through local improvement schemes and community improvement schemes because if they do not do it, nobody else will do it for them. I am sure the Acting Chairman is aware of this in his own constituency. This involves a group of ordinary decent Irish citizens. Deputy Higgins uses the phrase "ordinary working people". Ordinary working people live in rural communities as well and they are sick to the back teeth of listening to people give out about the fact that they are finally going to get something from a Government in terms of the provision of their water.

(Interruptions).

Deputy Patrick O'Donovan

The Deputy does not have to shout at me because I am not listening. I have listened to enough of what she has said so she should afford me some courtesy and let me speak. I know courtesy does not come that easily to some people in here but she might just listen. Many people in my constituency have to drill their own wells. They have to drill several hundred if not several thousands of feet into the ground to get water. They must bring in treatment systems to take the iron out of it and soften it. They must put in ultra-----

Acting Chairman (Deputy Alan Farrell)

I must bring the Deputy back to the amendment.

Deputy Patrick O'Donovan

This relates to the amendment because it is about the water conservation grant, which is designed to ensure that people can have a safe and potable water supply, including in a rural area where one might have groundwater that is at risk of contamination from cryptosporidium and septic tanks that do not function properly. In these cases, a person must buy an ultra-violet light to kill the bacteria that is flowing into the water they might use to make bottles for a young child. They might have to take a shower or have the audacity to wash their clothes, which some people in here might have a difficulty with.

The reality is that rural dwellers do that entirely at their own expense. Up to now, nobody on the Opposition benches has ever mentioned them. The only thing those on the Opposition benches have mentioned is that they do not want them to get anything. They do not want them to get the €100 grant and for a lot of people, such as pensioners living alone who have wells, pensioners who are members of group water schemes where their water could cost anything over a couple of hundred euro, this is a significant amount of money. The only query I have had about it in my constituency is when will people physically see the €100 because for the first time the State has recognised that something needs to be done for them.

I listened attentively to the remarks of the Deputies opposite and I fail to understand what they have against people in rural communities. There was a time when one of the Deputies opposite wanted to have a referendum on Irish Water. He wanted to put Irish Water into the Constitution but he would not put the aquifers or the infrastructure into the Constitution. The people who are currently providing their own water in homes, towns and villages are people living in Outer Mongolia, these are people in many cases who are living on the outskirts of regional towns and cities across the country who have no choice but to provide their own water. Those people have registered in large numbers because they have come to me saying they have had to pay for their water by way of a group water scheme where they have had to make the initial capital investment, engage engineers, make the planning applications, manage it with the local authorities, install meters and have volunteers read meters. Water meters are not a new construct arriving out of Saturn tomorrow morning, they have been in rural Ireland for a long time and people have had them read for a long time.

However, all of a sudden, because we are going to make it a level playing field and because we are going to ask everybody to make a contribution for the provision of water, some people have an issue with that. They believe that because one is living in a rural location and because the State never bothered to provide a service for those rural dwellers - probably the only service they are provided with is the delivery of post - and because rural dwellers have never been provided with a water service or a sewer and they have had to provide their own septic tank, it is by accident of birth that they live in a rural location. Some members of the Opposition will parade around the country looking for votes, members of Deputy Stanley's party and Deputy Ó Cuív's party and everyone else. Will they say to those people that because they are on a rural water scheme and because they have a septic tank and a well, they are second class citizens and they do not deserve the €100 grant? They will not. They will be mealy-mouthed about it by saying they are not really in favour of the €100 grant but will help fill out the form all the same. They will send out the leaflets when the legislation passes. That is as sure as night follows day. Deputy Stanley probably has the leaflet organised already to drop it around places like Mountmellick and the outskirts of Portlaoise and everywhere like that, with the message, "Don't forget to claim your €100 off Alan Kelly". Perhaps Deputy Stanley will do what he should do, which is to say to people-----

Deputy Brian Stanley

On a point of order, the Deputy is talking through his exhaust pipe. He is talking about something he knows nothing about. I ask him to withdraw those remarks.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Alan Farrell)

Sit down, please, Deputy Stanley.

Deputy Patrick O'Donovan

I am speaking to the amendment and I am speaking to Deputy Stanley's contribution.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Alan Farrell)

Deputy Stanley, you opened this door when you addressed this directly yesterday. Sit down, please.

Deputy Brian Stanley

I ask Deputy O'Donovan to withdraw those remarks. He cannot speak for me.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Alan Farrell)

I will ask you to withdraw that remark if you are not careful.

Deputy Patrick O'Donovan

I am actually speaking to Deputy Stanley's contribution and I listened to all of it-----

Deputy Brian Stanley

The Deputy was not here yesterday and he has only just come into the Chamber.

Deputy Patrick O'Donovan

I watched his contribution on the monitor and it made for very good television. Deputy Stanley is getting a bit hot under the collar now because maybe the truth is beginning to hurt a bit.

(Interruptions).

Deputy Patrick O'Donovan

All of a sudden those people around Emo and south County Laois down around the Kilkenny border that are on group water schemes and have septic tanks, they might now begin to see the real Deputy Stanley-----

Deputy Brian Stanley

A lot of them are on public supplies as well but Deputy O' Donovan would not know that.

Deputy Patrick O'Donovan

-----the anti-rural Ireland Deputy Stanley and the anti-rural Ireland Sinn Féin-----

Acting Chairman (Deputy Alan Farrell)

Deputy, please.

Deputy Brian Stanley

They are on public supplies as well but the Deputy would not know that.

Deputy Patrick O'Donovan

I know that the other two Deputies are really anti-rural Ireland, so in fairness I will not go too hard on them because they have a huge problem with everyone who lives in the country-----

Acting Chairman (Deputy Alan Farrell)

Deputy, that is enough.

(Interruptions).

Deputy Patrick O'Donovan

They have a huge problem with farmers, with everybody who lives outside the M50. Therefore, in fairness to those two Deputies I will not go down that road with them.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Alan Farrell)

Deputies, please.

Deputy Patrick O'Donovan

However, I am surprised that a rural Deputy would come out in the way he has-----

Deputy Brian Stanley

And swanned in.

Deputy Patrick O'Donovan

-----and attack a payment which is being given for the first time to anybody who provides his or her own water. I listened to last night's debate and this anti-rural agenda that is being driven by a very narrow sect-----

Deputy Brian Stanley

Fine Gael and the Labour Party drive it.

Deputy Patrick O'Donovan

What is remarkable is that the bulk of the rural Fianna Fáil Deputies have nothing to say on this because they are in favour of it as a lot of Fianna Fáil Deputies-----

Deputy Paudie Coffey

Deputy Ó Cuív is on the record.

Deputy Patrick O'Donovan

Yes, he is on the record, in fairness to him.

(Interruptions).

Deputy Patrick O'Donovan

A lot of Fianna Fáil Deputies, like myself, are engaging with group water schemes on a weekly basis, dealing with problems such as leakages, broken pumps, broken UV lamps and chlorine and fluorine that needs to be bought. Deputy Coppinger might laugh at it-----

Deputy Ruth Coppinger

It is nothing to do with the amendment.

Deputy Patrick O'Donovan

-----but she has not got one scintilla of a clue of what it is to live in a rural community and provide one's own services because in Deputy Coppinger's utopia everything just arrives at one's doorstep and there is no need to pay for it. However, in my part of the country that is not the way things work. In my part of the country, people go out and form a group water scheme, they bore their own well and they provide their own water. What could be wrong with any Government that brings in a scheme for the first time in the history of the State that says to those people it values what they have done for their families, children and communities and that for the first time they will get a very small amount of money. The only thing I will be saying to the Minister is that this should be an ongoing scheme given the costs involved in group water schemes. The Minister of State in his own part of the Comeragh mountains and places like that and in his experience as a member of Waterford County Council will be acutely aware that this is a real issue. For the first time in my membership of a local authority for eight years and as a Member of this House since 2011, I have seen real progress being made in a very short period of time with regard to the delivery of water services in my part of the country. We have had a disparate carry-on for long enough whereby it was everybody's problem, bar the people who were responsible for it. Finally, somebody has said that enough is enough. We must look to future investment in job creation. We must ensure that communities are not closed down as happened in Galway city when it was exposed to cryptospiridium for months on end-----

Acting Chairman (Deputy Alan Farrell)

Please speak to the amendment, Deputy.

Deputy Ruth Coppinger

Farmers.

Deputy Patrick O'Donovan

Deputy Coppinger can attack farmers all she likes but it does not behove the Opposition. I hope the Fianna Fáil Party in particular will disassociate itself from the scurrilous attacks being made on the farming community because it does not do anyone any good and it certainly does not do their case any good. Like everybody else, farmers are paying commercial water rates all their lives. Deputy Coppinger in her contribution mentioned people paying commercial rates. It is proposed to take the local government fund and leave it where it is so it will not follow the services but there will be increases in commercial rates. Who will have to pay the increases? It will be small businesses and people who are trying to rear their families-----

Deputy Ruth Coppinger

Tesco.

Deputy Patrick O'Donovan

-----who for long enough have had way too many burdens placed on them by people like Deputy Coppinger who do not have a clue of what it is to operate in the commercial reality.-----

Acting Chairman (Deputy Alan Farrell)

On the amendment, please, Deputy.

Deputy Patrick O'Donovan

The philosophy being pursued in the amendments and the contributions are the very same philosophies that have people queuing outside bank machines in Greece trying to take out €60.

Deputy Ruth Coppinger

There are no queues in Greece.

Deputy Paul Murphy

The ECB is responsible for Greece.

Deputy Patrick O'Donovan

That is the reality and that is what we have descended to in this House. We are taking a very basic commodity, the most basic commodity one needs to sustain any sort of an existence, and we want to make it safe and ensure that the supply is intact, that the pipes do not leak, that the pumps work and, most important, that we can tell people who come into the country that they can hold a glass under a tap and drink safely. If that means that we have to transfer a certain portion of money, which is already being used for that purpose, into a special purpose vehicle, call it what one wants, to maintain the service, what could possibly be wrong with that if that is what it is currently being used for? The money is currently being used for that purpose. It is being used by 43 local authorities across the country who are also subsidising rural group water schemes-----

Acting Chairman (Deputy Alan Farrell)

Please speak to the amendment, Deputy.

Deputy Patrick O'Donovan

-----so for people to say that they have a difficulty in transferring the liability and the funding stream across-----

Deputy Brian Stanley

Forty-three local authorities.

Deputy Patrick O'Donovan

Where did they expect that money to come from or do they expect to see water charges rise through the roof?

(Interruptions).

Acting Chairman (Deputy Alan Farrell)

Order, please, Deputies.

Deputy Patrick O'Donovan

Perhaps this is what they want. Finally-----

Deputy Paul Murphy

Keep going.

Deputy Patrick O'Donovan

Deputy Stanley is the only Member in the House at the moment at whom I am really surprised. He was a member of Laois County Council and knows what it is like for people to have wells that are contaminated. As I do every week, I am sure he fills out forms for people looking for water softeners, for iron to be withdrawn from wells, for UV lamps to be bought and for pumps to be replaced. He knows exactly what it is like. From going into farmyards he knows the costs people have in terms of water for washing down a bulk tank and a meter down the end of the laneway with a standing charge from Laois County Council because they are regarded as commercial users. He knows exactly what it is to dispose of that water. He knows the difficulties farmers have had for years with this. He knows the environmental protection regulations to which farmers must adhere.

His attack on this €100 is the one thing that disappoints me. In my time on a local authority I spent much time with Deputy Stanley through the Local Authority Members Association and other things. I know his heart is very much in rural communities, as is mine. Why would he be against this? I can understand why the other two Deputies would be against it because they are against everything that goes on in the country.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Alan Farrell)

I ask the Deputy to speak to the amendment.

Deputy Patrick O'Donovan

This is on the amendment.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Alan Farrell)

The Deputy is being very personal about it.

Deputy Patrick O'Donovan

It is the water conservation grant that the Deputies opposite are vociferously opposing.

Deputy Brian Stanley

It is not the water conservation grant.

Deputy Patrick O'Donovan

It is a water conservation grant. The Deputy should let me finish the point I am making.

Deputy Brian Stanley

We are discussing amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 20.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Alan Farrell)

Deputy O'Donovan, without interruption.

Deputy Patrick O'Donovan

Deputy Stanley will know from his membership of Laois County Council the difficulties for people in rural areas in terms of conserving their water. Every time a pipe is broken between the water meter at the end of the laneway and the bulk tank in the farmyard, that meter is still spinning around. Deputy Coppinger wants to shove up the price of water for commercial users - the farmers and the people in the small shops. That is her solution. Every time there is a broken pipe and someone has to come out, it must be paid for. This is only a small contribution towards that cost.

When someone digs up a part of a concrete yard in a farm, detects a leak, fixes it, and makes sure there is no leakage into the ground, that is an example of a water conservation element. So is harvesting the water from the roof of a shed that might be able to be used for washing a yard, but that also has to be paid for. I am surprised that Deputy Stanley thinks that one can walk into a hardware shop in Portlaoise or Tullamore, walk out with a barrel and say that one will not pay for it at all. In some utopian state a water conservation grant might not be needed, but we need it because all those things have to be paid for. All those water harvesting solutions we are being encouraged to use to wash farmyards need to be paid for. This sum of money is only a small amount of what is needed for that.

I say to the Minister of State that there should be a review of this within 12 to 18 months to see if it can be even further enhanced. I refer back to the old age pensioner living in Feohanagh in County Limerick, who has been on a group water scheme all her life because the alternative is to go half a mile down to the Deel. If it were not for a group water scheme established under the former parish priest in that community, Fr. Hudner, those people would be still left travelling to rivers or drilling their own wells. Perhaps Deputy Coppinger wants that and feels that people living outside the M50 do not deserve a water supply. In my estimation, those people are no different from the people who live in her constituency. I have a huge problem with this constant attack on farmers and rural people being launched by those two Deputies who want to blame them for everything.

Deputy Paul Murphy

When did we attack farmers?

Deputy Patrick O'Donovan

Enough is enough as far as I am concerned on this issue. This is long overdue, probably 50 years overdue. Many people became secretaries of group water schemes and went to knock on their neighbours' doors to ask for small contributions to dig the road, to get the road opening licence and to lay the pipework with voluntary labour because the local authorities could not afford it because they were not properly funded and were all over the place in the delivery of water services. That is what we have come to.

I have no difficulty in saying I want to see this enhanced even more into the future. Deputy Niall Collins, who has just come into the Chamber, will agree with me. The people I represent deserve some sort of recognition for the costs associated with the delivery of their water. Why would we not give it to them? Why do the three Deputies opposite have such a problem with people who live in rural locations getting this?

Deputy Paul Murphy

We do not.

Deputy Patrick O'Donovan

This is the first time in the history of the State that they have got anything. I welcome the Government's decision to give people something back. I welcome that the water conservation grant will do a small amount in terms of enhancing those people's positions in the delivery of water services on which they have been failed by local authorities under successive governments. This is not unique to this Government; it has been going on since the foundation of the State. For people who lived out in the country it was tough. They had two choices: provide their own water or go to the river, so I welcome that.

On the overall funding element I revert back to my original point. If we accept that a certain portion of the local government fund was always used for the delivery of water services how can there be any difficulty in accepting that that money should continue to follow the service? That is exactly what the Government is doing with this provision in the Bill. It is a responsible local service provision being supplemented by local authorities through the State for the delivery of a safe potable drinking water supply regardless of whether people live in Mulhuddart or Feohanagh. It ill behoves the Deputies opposite to be against giving rural people something for the first time ever, particularly someone as rooted in rural Ireland as Deputy Stanley is.

Deputy Ruth Coppinger

There are farmers in Mulhuddart, by the way.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Alan Farrell)

Before I call the Minister of State, I remind Deputies that we are now in our fifth hour of debate on this amendment. I ask Deputies to be more concise in their contributions and to avoid repetition. I will allow the Minister of State to come back and I would like him to conclude the debate on this amendment.

Deputy Brian Stanley

I want to come back on the amendment.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Alan Farrell)

I would really like the Minister of State to conclude the discussion by answering the questions that have been put to him. As we only have four minutes before Leaders' Questions, I will allow the Minister of State in now.

Deputy Ruth Coppinger

We are going to need local-----

Acting Chairman (Deputy Alan Farrell)

I ask Deputy Coppinger to sit down, please.

Deputy Paudie Coffey

Deputy Coppinger asked about the local property tax. I want to make it clear to the House that 100% of the local property tax is being provided to the local authorities with 0% of the local property tax going to Irish Water. I stated that on numerous occasions in the House yesterday evening when the Deputy was present in the House. I am stating it again. It is not accurate in any way to say that the local property tax is being used to fund Irish Water.

The great irony of Opposition Members at the moment is that they are opposed to the subvention. This is the very subvention that is assisting in making the funding model of Irish Water affordable for people. This is the subvention that is providing for the children's water allowance. This is the subvention that is providing for the capped charge. They are opposing something that is assisting the citizens they are purporting to represent.

The amendment simply allows for an amount of up to €540 million to be made available from the local government fund to the Exchequer. This is reflecting a budgetary decision that was well flagged with the publication of the 2015 Revised Estimates, which have already been debated and passed by the House. This provision simply gives the legal underpinning to that budgetary decision.

It is very disappointing to hear Sinn Féin opposing the conservation grant that assists rural dwellers. The grant assists people who have been paying for their water over many years, including people drilling their own wells, maintaining their own pumps and maintaining their own septic tank systems. In fairness, Deputy Ó Cuív and his Fianna Fáil colleagues have supported the conservation grant. It is very disappointing to hear Sinn Féin oppose it in the House.

The Government supports the amendment which is a simple measure to transfer funds to the Exchequer.

Debate adjourned.