I congratulate you on your election as Cathaoirleach. It is an honour which is well deserved because of your record in public life, particularly in the Seanad. I hope it is a long, happy and fruitful term.
Local Government (Delimitation of Water Supply Disconnection Powers) Bill, 1995: Second Stage.
Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
I thank the Minister for his kind comments.
Any legislation, public debate or press article on service charges is always of great interest to Members of the Oireachtas, local authority members and the public.
Local authorities have discretion in deciding whether to charge for services provided by them in their functional areas and the scale of any such charges. Elected members of local authorities, in considering the question of service charges in the context of framing their annual Estimates of expenses, have careful regard to the needs of their areas, the level and range of services to be provided and all sources of revenue available to finance those services. This local discretion, provided under the Local Government (Financial Provisions) (No. 2) Act, 1983, is a critical element in supporting the concept of local government, that is, the concept of decisions on local issues being taken locally and being implemented and financed by local resources. Service charges now represent a valuable source of income for local authorities and sustain the provision and maintenance of a wide range of local services. It is estimated that in 1994 domestic service charges generated income of about £50 million for local authorities.
As Senators will know, the question of local government financing, particularly the issue of service charges, has been a thorny subject for many years. In an effort to tackle this question, the Government in its policy agreement, A Government of Renewal, has given three specific commitments which have direct relevance to service charges. First, we have decided that the time has come for a complete and fundamental review of the entire system of local government finance. To that end, we undertook to commission a professional study to see how best to introduce a fair, equitable and reasonable system of local authority funding and to publish a White Paper on the subject. We recently announced that I had nominated a firm of consultants to carry out the study. We expect stage I of the study to be completed before the end of the year.
The second commitment given was to grant a tax allowance at the standard rate up to a maximum of £150 in respect of service charges paid. This commitment, which was made having regard to the fact that service charges are seen by some as a form of double taxation, was implemented by section 7 of this year's Finance Act.
Third, we agreed to amend the Local Government (Sanitary Services) Act, 1962 to delimit the power of local authorities to disconnect domestic water supplies for non-payment of service charges. The Bill before us is designed to implement that undertaking.
Since the 1800s, sanitary authorities — that is, county councils, county borough corporations, borough corporations and urban district councils — have been charged with the task of providing good quality water supplies to our homes. This they have done in an efficient manner down the years. The fifth annual report of the Environmental Protection Agency on water quality, which was published last week, highlights the fundamentally good quality of Irish drinking water, with compliance levels of over 99 per cent recorded in respect of the stringent standards which apply to the main health related parameters. The cost of maintaining a high standard of water supply can be a considerable burden on the resources of a local authority. To meet some of this cost, almost all local authorities now levy a charge in respect of water supplied by them.
Where a person refuses to pay a water charge it is open to local authorities to endeavour to recover the charge as a simple contract debt through the courts. Alternatively, local authorities are empowered, under the Local Government (Sanitary Services) Act, 1962, to withdraw the service from the defaulter, that is to disconnect a person's supply of water.
The issue of discontinuing a person's water supply for non-payment of charges has always been a contentious one and has given rise to controversy and, on occasions, acrimony. Many local authorities, after many years of dealing with defaulters, have found that disconnection of a water supply is the most effective method of recovering outstanding water charges. It is a matter for each local authority to decide how they propose to recover charges having regard to local circumstances. This is as it should be, and I have no intention of removing that discretion.
Although local authorities are statutorily empowered to disconnect water supplies, this does not mean that disconnection is a common occurrence. The power to disconnect has, in practice, been used sparingly by local authorities over the years. Disconnection should not be used as a first line of attack in the face of refusal to pay. Neither should it be used where a person cannot afford to pay a water charge. Disconnection should only be considered after all other reasonable avenues towards recovery of outstanding charges have been explored by the authorities concerned.
Although disconnections are not commonplace occurrences, it is important that the power to implement the sanction remains and is seen to remain. Local authorities across the country will confirm that the preliminary steps taken in advance of proposed disconnection generally succeed in coaxing payment, and that it is only in a small minority of cases that they have to resort to the stage of actually cutting off a supply. It is of interest to note that only 910 disconnections were carried out by county councils and county borough corporations in 1994. This represents a tiny fraction of the number of people to whom these authorities supplied water.
When the Local Government (Sanitary Services) Act, 1962 conferred powers of disconnection on local authorities, it did not establish any procedural arrangements or controls in respect of the implementation of that power. There are no statutory criteria or procedural regulations in place for local authorities to follow concerning disconnection. Neither are there statutory safeguards in place for consumers. Procedures in regard to disconnection will therefore vary from one local authority to another. This Bill will put those absent procedures and safeguards into place.
As the Minister, Deputy Howlin, has said elsewhere, no inference should be drawn from the introduction of this Bill that local authorities have acted thoughtlessly or in a cavalier fashion in the use of their disconnection powers. Local authorities have generally adopted a responsible and sympathetic approach in considering disconnection. The figure for the number of disconnections, which I quoted earlier, supports this fact.
While applauding the pragmatic attitude of local authorities, it must be fully appreciated that the withdrawal of a water supply from a person is indeed a very severe sanction, especially when one considers the effect this can have on the sick, the very young or the elderly. The Environmental Protection Agency's report, to which I referred earlier, underlined the importance of a water supply indicating that it is "arguably the most precious of all substances. It is essential for life, and each day we consume and use significant volumes of it. Over 80 per cent of our body weight is made up of water!" Bearing this in mind, it is essential that a clearly defined set of procedures and safeguards backed by statute are put in place to provide protection to consumers.
These procedures are being legislated for by section 3 of the Bill and the Schedule. Section 3 (2) provides that a local authority may only discontinue a supply of water where it receives an order of the District Court authorising it to do so. Under section 3 (3) the District Court can only grant an order where specified notification procedures have been followed by the local authority. The procedures, which are listed in the Schedule, are as follows: first, a demand for payment must issue in writing; second, at least two reminders must issue; third, two warning notices about possible court action leading to disconnection must be given — Senators should note that these warning notices can be given in conjunction with the reminders; and finally, the local authority must secure the delivery to the consumer, or send by registered post, a final notice indicating that it is proposed to seek a water discontinuance order from the court.
Arrangements similar to these are already being operated by many local authorities. However, legislating for specified procedures to be taken prior to disconnection will not only ensure that consumers are fully aware of where they stand, but will also guide and support local authorities in the implementation of their functions. Indeed, by circular letter of 4 April this year, I asked local authorities to implement these arrangements pending introduction of this Bill.
Under section 3 (3) (a), the new procedures will not apply to cases where an individual defaults on a payment due under an instalment order which had been granted by the courts on a previous occasion where the local authority had recourse to the courts to recover an outstanding charge as a simple contract debt. This will obviate any requirement on a local authority to use the courts on more than one occasion in respect of disconnection.
In meeting the commitment in A Government of Renewal to amend the Sanitary Services Act, 1962, the Minister, Deputy Howlin, was keen not to abolish or erode the powers of a local authority to disconnect a person's water supply where the person has the ability to pay but refuses to do so. In dealing with water charge defaulters, local authorities are now being given the backing of an order of the courts if they wish to invoke the sanction of disconnection to ensure everybody pays a fair share. If local authorities were powerless to take effective action in the face of default by those who can afford to pay, the service charge system would crumble, as other consumers would justifiably question why they should be asked to carry an unfair burden to make up for the default of some who are happy to scrounge off the rest of the community.
While the power to disconnect is preserved, the Bill provides safeguards for those who do not have the resources to pay. I am satisfied there is no justification for cutting off a person's water supply because the consumer simply cannot afford to pay a water charge. To cater for such situations, section 3 (3) (b) specifically provides that the District Court may not issue an order authorising a local authority to disconnect where the default in payment was as a result of hardship. I am sure Senators will agree the protection afforded by this section to the less well-off in our society is to be welcomed. Although in practice people who were suffering hardship would not have been cut off by a local authority if they were unable to pay their water charges, this legislation will remove any doubts or worries about it. To copperfasten this protection for the less well-off, section 3 (5) prohibits a local authority from disconnecting in any case where it has granted a waiver of a water charge on the grounds of hardship.
Hand in hand with these provisions, section 3 (4) requires the court to take into account the personal and household circumstances of the consumer when considering whether to grant a water discontinuance order. This measure is included so that vulnerable people in a household are not put at risk as a result of disconnection, people who perhaps have no control over whether the water charge is paid. For example, if a person's medical condition might be dangerously affected by the withdrawal of a water supply, the court would have discretion not to grant a water discontinuance order.
I am happy with the extent of safeguards in the Bill for the less well off sections of our society. At the same time I am happy that it allows for strict measures to be taken against defaulters with the ability to pay. To deal with these cases, the power to disconnect remains. As a further disincentive to those who may consider not paying, section 4 provides that where a court grants a water discontinuance order, the consumer will, in the absence of any special or substantial reasons, be liable to pay the costs and expenses of a local authority in its court application. Not only that, should the consumer wish to be reconnected following action by a local authority on foot of a water discontinuance order, that person will be liable for the cost of disconnecting the supply in the first place and any subsequent costs incurred by the authority in reconnecting the supply.
This Bill is worthy of support. I know it will be the subject of constructive debate in this House and I commend it to Members.
There would be no need for this Bill if Democratic Left and Labour had been honest with the people about water charges over the years. Those parties misled people into believing they would abolish water charges and would find a mechanism whereby there would be no charges for local domestic services. They knew that over 500,000 people had paid water charges whereas less than 1 per cent, about 900 people, had had their supply cut off by local authorities last year.
The purpose of the Bill is to resolve the dispute between the Government partners on the application of charges for domestic water supply. I may propose an amendment to the Title, to replace it with the following: "An Act to provide for the resolution of the dispute between Democratic Left, the Labour party and Fine Gael in relation to the application of water charges", although I do not wish to be cynical or mischievous.
The Bill is a whitewash. If Democratic Left believes this legislation will convince the public that it is taking action on behalf of people who find it difficult to meet their water charges, it will receive a rude awakening. The people will not be fooled with this measure. It is a far cry from the outrage and concern about water charges and disconnections expressed by Democratic Left and the other parties when they were in Opposition. There is little regard for the crocodile tears of Democratic Left, which have suddenly dried up. It now desires to hold onto office and recognises everyone must pay a contribution for the provision of these services.
Under the method of financing available to the Department at present, there is a combination of funding from the EU, the National Development Plan and contributions from local consumers, which are estimated at £50 million. Included in that figure is an element for services other than water supply. In the week the Minister, Deputy De Rossa, said it was likely that he would not be able to make long term predictions about the availability of finances to pay pensions, the left-wing, socialist element of the Government introduced this legislation, which will add further insult and penalty to the consumers who already find it difficult to pay.
Can the Minister of State indicate what the charge will be if a disconnection is made? The consumer, the local authority and the courts will have to adjudicate on a demand for £100, where a person does not have the financial ability to meet that payment. The result of this procedure is that the bill for £100 will increase to perhaps £1,000 and will put reconnection far beyond the capacity of the person involved. It will condemn hundreds of householders to join the 3,000 who still do not have the basic facility of a water supply and will make it more expensive and difficult for them to be reconnected. At the same time, it will create further problems in the litigation area and for local authority financing.
This Bill is a joke and a charade and it should be withdrawn. All Members knows that when people are told that for the foreseeable future they will have to make a contribution towards the provision of these services, they will follow that lead and abide by that decision. Many local authorities who were not securing substantial payments of domestic charges are now finding it easier to do so.
Section 3 authorises the court to look into the personal and household circumstances of water consumers. What will happen in these cases? District Courts will be turned into social welfare offices and District Court Judges into welfare officers, adjudicating on personal circumstances and hardships. It is totally unacceptable and undesirable that the decisions on hardship issues and whether a person can meet his or her water charges will be made in the District Court. Coming from this caring Democratic Left wing of the Government it is a most unusual procedure and one that will create enormous problems, with people's personal details likely to be splashed all over the local newspapers. This is outrageous and the measure should be roundly condemned and withdrawn.
The most amusing part of the Bill, which I have been trying to work out, is in part 3 of the Schedule which states:
Where the name of the consumer cannot be ascertained by reasonable inquiry, the initial demand, reminders, warning notices or the final notice may be addressed to "the consumer" without naming the consumer.
So some imaginary consumer will be brought before the courts where some imaginary procedure will be entered into. This Bill is the biggest joke I have ever seen in my time both in this House and the Lower House.
The environmental action programme has made the major public funding of water supplies a priority. During the last decade, environmental policy has been working towards bringing drinking water standards in all areas fully into line with the statutory regulations. The policy has been to eliminate both inland and marine pollution and fairly sizeable amounts of capital have been invested to achieve that. A sum in the region of £442 million was invested in the provision of water services from 1990 to 1994. The Environmental Protection Agency and the environmental action programme have committed a further £300 million over the decade for new and improved public water supply schemes.
It is only fair and reasonable that in a situation where the European Union and the Government's national development plans are committed to sizeable expenditure on water services, the community at large who benefit from domestic water supplies must share some of the cost. That share is small compared to the benefits of the facility being provided. This facility is already denied to between 2,500 and 3,000 people, and many more will be denied when this new procedure is put in place.
Dragging people before the courts to have their personal circumstances discussed in public and having them broadcast on local radio as well as in the Clare Champion and the Limerick Leader is a disgraceful way for any Government to behave. They should be endeavouring to find an improved mechanism for collecting charges for sanitary services.
Every agency or organisation involved in any type of financial collection from customers or consumers is improving its customer services. Easier methods are being put in place to help people to deal with the hardship of outstanding arrears. Instead of pressing ahead with this legislation the Government would be well advised to call in the Director of Consumer Affairs along with departmental advisers and county managers to work out a sensible formula to resolve the problems facing the 1 per cent or less who get into difficulties. Firm guidelines should be laid down so that for the foreseeable future charges for domestic services like these will to some extent be met. The Government cannot expect the taxpayer to fund the lot from Exchequer resources.
I have a few questions arising from the legislation to which I would appreciate answers from the Minister before we conclude. The Minister said that a study of the greater Dublin area was under way to assess what the water supply was like there, to make recommendations for the future development of services and to secure domestic water supplies for that area. That study is well under way and a report is expected towards the end of this year. Can the Minister indicate what the present state of play is in relation to that study? What will the financial implications of the study be?
I understand that the European Union is preparing some development plan for this area. Can the Minister indicate what the Irish input is likely to be? What undertakings can the Minister give on the future long-term security of domestic water supplies? We have already seen quite an amount of concern being expressed with the recent dry spell causing water supply shortages in some isolated areas.
Rather than waste Government time on the spurious type of legislation before us today, which is totally unnecessary and draconian in holding a guillotine over the heads of water consumers, the Minister should withdraw this Bill. He should find a formula to deal in a humane way with the less than 1 per cent of people who have difficulties.
The Minister should indicate what the Government programme will be for the management of ground water supplies, protecting resources and funding. There must be some realistic prospect of tackling and resolving the problems of the 3,000 people who still do not have a basic human right and are reduced to Third World status through the absence of a domestic water supply in their homes, rather than the charade we have before us today.
I welcome the Minister of State to the House. It would be remiss of me not to pay tribute to the Minister for at long last taking it upon himself to tackle the area of local government and its financing. I welcome the recent appointment by the Minister for the Environment of a consultant to carry out a study that will result in the publication of a White Paper. This is in accordance with the programme, A Government of Renewal which contains three commitments with a direct bearing on service charges.
The Minister is also responding to a number of submissions from the General Council of County Councils of which I am a member. In June 1994 the General Council made a submission on local government funding and finances to the former Minister for the Environment, Deputy Michael Smith. A further submission was made on 23 March 1995 to the current Minister relating to the scope and terms of reference for the professional study on local government financing.
This is an important area and I am glad that the Government has grasped the nettle by proposing to publish a White Paper on local government financing. I hope there will not be a prolonged delay and that the White Paper will be published in the near future.
Former Governments have shied away from the real issue but now we have a Government with backbone and courage which is prepared to face it. The idea of disconnecting water supplies to houses is draconian. It reminds one of the landlord system when eviction was the norm if tenants failed to pay their rents. We all abhor the idea of eviction which brings back memories of the Famine 150 years ago. This year we are respectfully commemorating the terrible famine in this country.
The disconnection of water supply to a house is an open and manifest procedure which can have a detrimental effect, particularly on the children in the household. They are the innocent victims. One never knows the reasons for non-payment but, regardless of the reasons, children should not be embarrassed. One can imagine children going to school the morning after the council moved into an estate to cut off the water supply. The type of remarks passed and the hurt caused and felt can have a lasting and detrimental effect on young people. There is merit in this Bill if we consider deeply the implications of cutting off water supplies from householders and the effect it can have on other members of the family who, through no fault of their own, are involved.
I am disappointed — but not surprised — by the statements on this issue by my good friend and colleague, Senator Daly. I know he was advancing the policy of his own party, Fianna Fáil, which stands for patriotism, nationalism and defence of the people. He would prefer to see contractors with machines move in and publicly disconnect water supplies rather than give people the opportunity to bring their case before the courts.
Local authorities are very sensitive to people's needs and problems. Over the years the action of cutting off water supplies has been taken only in the most extreme cases. Recently, I took it upon myself to conduct a survey on cutting off water supplies and I wrote to the various secretaries and finance officers around the country. I thank the professional people involved in the councils for their quick responses. I will not go through all the letters I received from the councils; I have a plethora of replies for which I am thankful.
It is an indication of the sympathetic approach of councils to cutting off water supplies that this measure has had limited use. I will refer to three of the letters. Monaghan County Council advised me that a total of 17 householders had their water services disconnected over the last five years. They asked me to note that four of the properties in question were vacant during that time. This is a very small number of disconnections. In my county of Galway, the second largest county, the number of householders cut off by Galway County Council over the last five years is approximately 70. This represents about 14 disconnections a year which is very small. Cork Corporation has not carried out any water disconnection for nonpayment of service charges.
It is obvious that disconnection has not been used as a first line of attack or in an uncaring fashion by local authorities. The contrary is true. The authorities in general have adopted a reasonable and sympathetic attitude in this sensitive matter. We should look at the limitations on the powers of local authorities to discontinue water supply services. Section 3 (2) provides that before an authority may disconnect a supply of water for non-payment of charges it must first obtain an order from the District Court and such an order may only be granted by the court following clearly defined procedures set out in the Schedule. The demand must be issued in writing; at least two reminders of outstanding charges must be issued; and at least two warnings must have been given, either separately or in conjunction with the reminders. The Minister has already outlined that procedure in detail. Any fair minded person would say that this gives people every scope and opportunity to pay the service charges. If they are not able to do so, they can make a case to the council.
The Bill will establish a standardised Statute backed procedure ensuring that people will be in no doubt as to where they stand in the matter of paying water charges. It is important in terms of equity that everybody who is liable to pay and can afford to pay charges does so. In this way the burden of paying for the provision and maintenance of much needed and vocally demanded local services is fully shared. If everybody pays a little, there will be an equitable burden placed on all. The great English writer, GK Chesterton once said that trifles make perfection but perfection is no trifle. If we all do a trifle, we may not achieve perfection but at least we will have a better system of local government.
Every support and protection is there for people who are under pressure and unable to pay. A section of this Bill provides that the court may not grant an order authorising disconnection in any case where the default in payment arose as a result of hardship. Another section prohibits disconnection in any case where a local authority has granted a water charge waiver on the grounds of hardship. This is a solid, well balanced Bill. It is tough on those who will not pay and sympathetic to the needs of those who cannot.
In general I welcome the terms of this Bill and the protection enshrined therein for people who could be described as hardship victims. Local authorities are made up of people who are sensitive to the people's needs because they deal with ordinary people on a daily basis. They should be commended for their outstanding service and their sensitive and sympathetic approach to the many people who approach them daily. I am confident they will operate the measures enshrined in this Bill in a fair minded manner. Like the Minister I commend this Bill to the House.
I do not believe a word of it.
I join other Members of the House in welcoming the Minister. I believe there will be more conviction in his deliberations on other issues than on this issue. The Minister's heart is not in this proposal and he could not be honest or sincere. He talked about a White Paper and Senator Daly talked about a whitewash. The country knows that this is unworkable, even if we all went along with it 100 per cent. The special courts are being reintroduced.
My county has water charges of £4 million and they constitute a major part of the county manager's estimate. We have two major schemes. The first is the Pollen dam in Buncrana, requiring funding of £30 million which must be funded by taxpayers, ratepayers and the EU. We are on our knees making our contribution to that funding. The Loughmoran water scheme will cost another £30 million and the fishing industry in Killybegs, County Donegal, is demanding more money. There is an ongoing demand for extending the water supply while the Minister is scuttling it and pretending that it is all right. I cannot foresee anybody, whether using four gallons of water a day or one million, having any difficulty proving to the court that they cannot afford to pay. Any of us could go to the court and prove that we are under financial stress. Financial difficulty is not about not having a job.
I have been a public representative for many years and it gives me a pain to hear somebody pleading to have their water charges waived when I can see a satellite dish bolted to their roof. In such situations I look around and make an assessment. Many people will not pay. I told the House of a case where somebody had a problem, they were not getting their supplementary welfare allowance. I listened, I took out my notebook and started writing down details. Before I had finished — I have put this on the record and I am saying it again today — I established that the person, with his unemployment assistance income, his medical card and his family, was better off than a Senator elected to this House.
The Minister is giving people an opportunity to revolt against paying for the expedience of keeping a promise the Democratic Left made when they never expected to be part of Government. Before the last election, a candidate, whom out of charity I shall not name, tore up water bills in Letterkenny and said that if he was elected the people would not pay water bills, that water bills should not be paid. That kind of nonsense is not accepted by a majority of the people. Millions of pounds of somebody's money must be spent to provide a basic essential service for the people, and for industrial, commercial and domestic use.
Clean water is an essential service and it is becoming more important and scarce. In some countries a bottle of water costs £2. The Minister is forcing the local authority into court. Donegal County Council has one of the best administrators in the revenue office. He has a staff and a bank of computers; some people have four or five different connections, numbers, farms and meters. The whole system is a maze and the Minister is offering a way out for people who want it. This is utter madness. He will not get credit for it on any ballot paper on which he puts his name in future. This Bill is totally dishonest.
Some £4 million of Donegal County Council's revenue depends on water charges at a time when we do not have a warm pound note. The Minister cut £1 million from the Donegal County Council county road maintenance allocation this year. I talked to Mr. Kevin Quigley in the engineer's office and asked him to cut a few hedges and fill a few potholes. He said he did not have a penny to carry out the work with. I asked if he had enough money to pay his own wages and office staff until the end of the year and he told me that all the local engineers are having a meeting to see if there will be enough money until the end of the year. Now the Minister intends telling them that he has scuttled one of their sources of finance.
Everyone who has to pay will be under some financial pressure. It is easy to present a case in such a way that a person appears to be under pressure. Everyone I know, except a few lucky people, is under some financial pressure, and if a person is offered a possibility to opt out, that person will take that option. I am in the office of Donegal County Council every week trying to resolve problems for people who do not have the funds to meet their water bills and who are pleading for sympathy and understanding.
The Minister has scuttled the structures that the county manager in my county put in place on the day he presented the estimates to the council. The members of the Minister's party and of the Labour Party walked into the lobby and voted for the county manager's estimate. The Minister has pulledthe rug from under them as a sop to a party that is only temporarily in office, that was extravagant in the promises it never thought it would have to keep. He has broken his back to accommodate that party because he has no other solution. The Irish people must understand that to do so is utterly dishonest.
It is about time the Minister told us what the White Paper will do for local authorities. Will it provide a single extra pound of finance? No White Paper is of any interest to a local authority member if it does not. The Minister can shuffle the deck as much as he likes but is there any money on the table? How can he explain where the money will come from when he has cut county road maintenance finance by £1 million? The Minister should credit ordinary people with some intelligence. He cannot expect to be taken seriously if he talks about a White Paper while he is legislating to make it difficult for local authorities to collect charges.
My county has a very generous waiver scheme. Before the Minister thought up this legislative gimmick, my county, and every other, had established a very generous waiver scheme where hardship cases are looked at on their merits.
The Senator's county council disconnected 85 people's water supply last year.
Yes, but look at the characters whose water supply we disconnected. Their supply was not disconnected without due consideration and correspondence. We only disconnect where it is established beyond doubt that the people have the resources to pay and they have refused to do so. My county is very generous in administering the waiver scheme. If the county council is forced to go through the court, we will have to establish a special court.
The Minister has done the country a major disservice. The Government has paid too high a price for the support of Democratic Left and time will prove this beyond doubt. This could have been done some other way. The Government could have smothered this Bill and allowed the Democratic Left to fade away. Democratic Left would not back out because they have ministerial office and they will never have it again. It is unacceptable to put this kind of pressure on a Government. We expect more from the Fine Gael and Labour Parties who have at least some experience of Government. The Minister should and will pay a price for this totally dishonest and destructive approach to the financing of local authorities. He compounds the whitewash by talking about a White Paper which will solve some of the problems. I appeal to the Minister, as somebody with guts who can take a stand, not to proceed with this legislation.
A Leas-Chathaoirligh, I welcome the Minister to the House and I welcome this Bill.
In discussing water supply, we are concerned with having a good, decent and reliable service in local authorities areas. I welcome the Bill because it gives local authorities a set of procedures to catch those people who have money but will not pay. I do not know why Opposition Members are making a fuss about this legislation because what we want is a fair system whereby people with money pay their share. That is the basis of this Bill.
That is not stated in the Bill.
This legislation will ensure that people who will not pay their water bills are brought to court. It is clear that the system is designed to deal with cases of hardship, if they arise.
Cutting off a water supply is very serious. I have been a member of Cork County Council since 1974 and I know that council members, managers and staff regard having to cut off the water supply to a house as a very serious matter. Consequently, it is not the policy of county councils simply to cut off water supplies. Local collectors will know, and representations by local authority members will prove, if the person involved is a genuine hardship case. The council will then operate the waiver scheme, abolish the charge or find some way for the person to pay over a short period. There have been cases where councils have allowed people up to a year to pay. We have been very helpful to people in difficulty. The real purpose of this legislation is to catch the "cowboys".
A procedure must be in place for the process of cutting off water supplies as a last resort. I have a letter from Donegal County Council which states that, in the vast majority of cases, charges were paid within hours of the supply being cut off. This proves the point that cutting off the supply sends a message to the defaulter that they will not receive water unless they pay for it.
I am happy to see the extension of the hardship provision in the Bill. If a household's water charges are not paid the council and the courts will consider the fact that a person in that house — perhaps not the person liable for the charges — may be in great need of water. This could include the sick, the young or the elderly. Where hardship is involved, the courts have no power to cut off the water supply.
Local charges are an essential part of local authority finances. If people refuse to pay those charges, from where will the money come? In the past we saw what happened to local authorities with the abolition of rates. In 1977 two thirds of local authority finances were supplied from central funds and one third from local charges. The reverse applies at present. The rate support grant has been tremendously reduced with the result that local authorities are starved of finances. The very unwise decision to abolish rates in the 1970s, as a method of vote-catching, is one of the main reasons local authority financing is in its present state. I welcome the reform of local government and the means provided for local authority finances.
The Government of renewal which is running the affairs of this country promised a review of the entire system of local government. That review will be the subject of a White Paper. The tax allowance has also been set at a standard rate of up to £150 because it was felt that the charges represented a double taxation. That has been alleviated. It was also part of A Government of Renewal to delimit procedures to local authorities to disconnect water supplies. At present a local authority can cut off a household's water supply. This gives people the opportunity to go to court and say that the local authority is wrong and is not taking the hardship provision into account. We are making this easier for people who experience hardship.
I come from a rural part of the country where innumerable group water schemes are in operation and many houses have local, individual or private water supplies. Many people have told me that they would like to be in a position to pay the charges because water freezes in winter and pumps have to be maintained. In towns and surrounding areas, which have large group schemes, there is a steady, regular supply of clean water. In country areas people have to sink a well, build a pump house and provide and maintain a pump. These people would love to be in position to pay service charges and have a proper water supply. I cannot let the opportunity pass to put this on the record.
In conclusion, I wish to speak about procedure which is very well laid out in the Bill. The Minister has stated that a person will receive a written demand for payment followed by two reminders, which may include notice of possible court action. People are not playing ball if they do not respond to these demands. They are avoiding the charges. If a person in my area receives a notice, particularly when it states that possible court action may be involved, they approach me asking what they should do. I immediately arrange for them to receive a waiver form. The local authority takes into account that the waiver is being considered and court proceedings are either dropped or not proceeded with. The whole matter is often worked out in a reasonable manner for the local authority and the person concerned.
I want to compliment council officials. Those in the office in Clonakilty, which is responsible for the collection of payments, are most considerate. People have been fairly treated there. It would be a last resort for any official in the Clonakilty office of Cork County Council to consider cutting off anybody's water supply. The local rent collector, who is available once a week in the local engineering offices of the county council, also provides a very good service by consulting people about how they want to pay. People often include £1 or £2 per week with their rent to cover water and refuse charges so that they will not have to make one large payment for those charges. This Bill was long overdue to provide county councils with procedures for a fair system of obtaining money from people who can well afford to pay but want to avoid it. We will have done a good day's work if the Bill achieves this.
I welcome the Minister. I was disappointed when I saw him coming in with this Bill because I would find it much easier to be annoyed with a Minister from Democratic Left. I am very critical of the Bill and I hope the Minister will not take my criticism personally. The Minister said he believed the Bill was worthy of support; I do not believe it is. I would like to be constructive, but I will find it extremely difficult because I am annoyed about this Bill. I listened to what the Minister for the Environment, Deputy Howlin, said in the other House when he introduced it and to what the Minister of State and the two Government speakers said this morning, but I did not hear a solid argument for introducing it. I could use most of what the Minister for the Environment said in the other House and what the Minister of State and the Government speakers said today as an argument against it. It has been a waste of the Minister's, officials in the Department and our time discussing this issue.
Since I have been a Member of the House I have heard Senators raise issues about funding for roads, potholes and library services on the Order of Business, in Private Members' Time and on the Adjournment, but I did not hear a Senator raise as a matter of concern that somebody's water supply was cut off. I do not believe it has been raised in the other House either.
I am sure it is difficult for the Minister to come into the House to listen to this, but this Bill is being introduced because of a commitment given to Democratic Left when it went into Government. Everyone in the Department of the Environment, including the Minister and the Minister of State, and members of the Government accept that local charges must be collected. From our experiences on local authorities, we have seen the caring way in which they handle the collection of water charges. I discussed this matter with the two local authorities in my area of Laois and Offaly, with the finance officers concerned, those who collect the charges and those who discuss them with people who have problems. None are in favour of the introduction of the Bill and they believe it will affect the money being collected.
Laois County Council has two methods of raising funds locally — rates, which raise £1.8 million annually, and service charges. Last year the estimate in Laois was that £1.03 million would be collected in local charges and £1.029 million was collected. The Minister can see the compliance rate. Last year Laois County Council cut off water supplies to two people. One man already had a pump and requested that the water supply be cut off because he did not want to pay for something which he was not using. The other person could only be described as a messer. He never paid his charges and gave cheques to the council which he stopped or which bounced. He did not co-operate in any way.
A speaker said this Bill would catch the cowboys, but it will make it easier for them not to pay charges and to drag local authorities through the courts to get a court order. The only sanction against them until now was the threat of cutting off the water supply, which was very effective. In 1987 before Laois County Council introduced the procedure of disconnecting water supplies, it had arrears in local charges of £1.7 million when local charges were half of what they are today. These arrears have been reduced because of the sanction the council had to cut off a water supply. The council only had to apply that to one person last year. It is concerned that people will use the powers under this Bill and will allow it to take them to court if it wants to cut off their water supply. Those who have made arrangements to pay a couple of pounds each week have already said this to the collectors. I also spoke to Offaly County Council, which only cut off two people last year.
Senator McDonagh said the Government had backbone and courage. I cannot understand how anyone could say that. It is bringing in a Bill which will only suit those who are effectively telling local authorities to go to hell, that they will not pay them and that if they want money or to disconnect their water supply they can incur further expense and take them to court. No public representative, Member of this or the other House or the Government has time for such people.
A finance officer to whom I spoke in the county council said he was concerned that a court may not grant a water discontinuance order in any case where it is satisfied that the default in payment was due to hardship. There is no evidence in Laois or in Offaly County Council that anybody has been cut off because he could not pay. A hardship case is given a waiver or an arrangement is made with the council.
Laois County Council has a unique way of dealing with this. As well as sending notices to those involved, it sends a list to local councillors to ask if they know of any reason a person would not be in a position to pay or if there were problems in the family. The council believes it may not be aware of difficulties. In one case an illiterate person who got demands from the council was not able to read the notices and obviously could not respond. The local councillor was aware of that and was able to sort out the situation.
The council will send out an overseer if it is contemplating cutting off a water supply. The overseer will tell the individual that if an arrangement is not made within a couple of days his water supply will be cut off. The council will make a new arrangement at any time with anybody even if he has defaulted on a previous arrangement. I cannot understand how anybody could say that local authorities have not been extremely reasonable, fair and accommodating to anyone who has had a problem paying local service charges.
This is a bad move against local authorities. We constantly expect them to do more, yet we are reducing their base for collecting revenue. The Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise and Employment, Deputy Rabbitte, was in the House last night to deal with the Casual Trading Bill and he spoke about devolving powers on local authorities. On the one hand, they are being given more powers and are expected to do more work, while on the other hand, we are reducing their revenue base. I am angry about this.
We are supporting a small number who have no regard for the State and local authorities and who believe that somebody else should pay for everything. They are vociferous in their demands for services from local authorities, but will say they have a principled objection to paying for those services. They have no principles when they demand services from the county council.
I have been asked to raise another problem by officials in the local authorities. In a case where an individual has been granted a full or a part water charges waiver by the sanitary authorities, the local authority cannot then get an order to disconnect. Officials in the local authorities are concerned that this will harden their attitude to giving somebody a waiver. They have been sympathetic, have reduced hardship cases and have been willing to give people waivers. However, if by giving a person a waiver, it effectively means that they have no sanction to collect the balance of what is due, they will be slow to give waivers to borderline cases. In effect, this will cause more hardship to people.
I am not pleased about having to chide the Minister and I do not want him to take it personally. I do not believe that in his heart he supports this measure. I am sure the Minister agrees, as we all must from our experiences with them, that local authorities are reasonable, caring and fair. I cannot support this Bill.
I welcome the Minister. He is my former colleague here and a former Lord Mayor of Cork city. As a Deputy he represented the north side of the city for many years and is highly regarded. I also congratulate him on his openness, sincerity and concern, and most importantly, on the way he conducts his business as Minister. It is a great pleasure to have him here today. I never thought in 1979 that I would be speaking to Deputy Allen as Minister, and I am proud to do so.
Like myself, the Minister has been involved for many years at local authority level with the problem of charges. He now has the responsibility to restructure local government, which is long overdue. The Taoiseach gave, this responsibility directly to the Minister and he could not have given it to a finer person, especially given his knowledge of what is happening at local government level.
The Minister and I represent the second largest city in the country, where we had long arguments with others regarding the problem of a second charge or tax. The Minister was especially aware that such charges amounted to second taxes. I agreed with this, and between us we ensured the introduction of tax relief on service charges in the budget, after long argument going back to 1985. I pushed for this measure and the Minister always agreed with it.
The Bill protects those who will not consider paying a second tax in the form of charges for their domestic water supplies, which will not now be cut off except through a court order. Nobody but the courts should have the authority to cut vital supplies. In this respect it could be argued that electricity supply constitutes a vital supply. It is clear that water is a vital necessity and only the courts should have the right to disconnect water supplies.
The collection of moneys for local authorities is long overdue, especially since their undermining from 1977 following the elimination of rates, after the reduction in these by one quarter in 1976, a reduction which illustrates that other Governments were prepared to consider eliminating them. When rates were eliminated, however, it was never explained how local authorities were to be funded.
In introducing legislation to protect people from disconnection of their water supplies, it is time for the Minister to look at restructuring local authorities, a move which is long overdue. It is shameful that we allowed the local authorities in Dublin, Cork, Limerick, Galway and Waterford to deteriorate so much and that we are not prepared to acknowledge, following the demise of rural areas, that the vast majority of people live in cities and big towns. We have not maintained the infrastructures of these centres, much less upgraded them. At the same time we pride ourselves on building motorways. I am sorry for anybody who wishes to cycle in and around towns as the deterioration in our footpaths, roads, parks and so on does not do us proud.
The Bill provides us with the opportunity to take a broader look at our local services. In the narrow sense it is concerned with the protection of water supplies to people, However, in the broader sense we should go beyond this. In this respect, the Government will, I hope, ascertain what is needed at local government level. Is there a need to consider a general charge in respect of services in our cities and towns? Is it not true that most people will say that their town is not looking as well as it should? As a former Lord Mayor of Cork city, I am not proud of the fact that all is not looking well in our city.
There has been a rapid deterioration in the older parts of our cities, yet nothing is being done and no answers have been provided by any Government over the past ten to 12 years. This situation has gone on for too long. I am, therefore, pleased to note the commitment in the Programme for Government to restructure local government and, more importantly, to restructure the finances of local government so that responsibility rests with people locally.
Are people prepared to accept their local responsibilities? Do we have authorities and councils which have no authority because they do not have any finance? Responsibility must rest at local level. However, is this good from a national viewpoint or for our national politicians? We must address this issue. Unfortunately, the national politician must be involved in every little thing that happens at local level. This should be restructured in such a way that the national politicians become the hawks: they should ensure that the finances are available. However, if they are not being spent properly they can highlight this at national level or express unhappiness with a group of local politicians from a given area. Following this, a reexamination could be implemented.
It is a sad reflection that we must introduce legislation to protect people from having their water supply cut off. The Bill provides this protection, except in unforeseen circumstances and where people are not prepared to pay any charges, at which point the courts decide. Nobody should have the authority, except in very serious situations, to cut off water supplies.
At one stage it appeared that some authorities were in conflict with each other over the issue of service charges. For example, Limerick Corporation abolished service charges, but this created a false impression as it introduced another type of charge. Dublin Corporation did not implement service charges for a number of years. It was right to do so as it receives substantial funding at local level from high valuations that other towns and cities do not have. We should examine the situation in these towns and cities to ascertain why they should have a charge and in what way they spend their money. We should also look at the city of Cork, where valuations continue to be in Victorian figures.
Factors such as these must be understood when considering the situation in towns and cities. For example, every Cork man will readily admit that there is not one part of Cork city which is free from these factors. It worries me to see the decline of parts of the city and to see its infrastructure deteriorating. No politician will gain votes by allowing infrastructures to deteriorate because they will not grasp the political nettle.
We must tell the people once and for all that we have a responsibility to make sure we do not allow a rapid deterioration of our infrastructure in rural or urban areas. Some towns fare better than others; older towns are not being kept up to scratch. One can, however, be proud of the way in which many have been kept.
I welcome the Bill and the Minister's commitment. Over the next two years I hope we will see a rapid and serious restructuring of the collection of moneys so that areas can be better looked after.
This Bill is unnecessary and will lead to utter chaos in local authorities. I will not go over the history behind the Bill; however, rainbows come and go but the cost of providing a proper water supply to householders in all areas goes on and somebody will have to pay. Will it once again be the taxpayers, those few who are paying too much? The Government will promise to reduce personal taxation leaving borrowing as the only alternative and sinking the young generation, many of whom are without jobs, further into debt.
The Minister told us that an estimated £50 million has been generated for local authorities. Where will that come from? Will there be more taxation or more reckless borrowing? The Government cannot shirk from either option as there is no crock of gold in Leinster House.
There was no need for this Bill. I have no experience of urban local authorities, but Dublin has a large income from rates and for many years it could balance the books without having water charges. However, in most local authorities that is not possible. Most of the county councils are heavily in debt: the debt to the banks is over £100 million and they are paying high interest rates. This will be the straw that breaks the camel's back.
Money is already so scarce that in rural areas, in particular, the service is no longer provided at weekends because the councils cannot afford it. If one lives in the country and the water goes off on a Friday evening one would be lucky to have the supply back by Monday or Tuesday. In other words, the councils will deal only with towns and villages with higher populations. This Bill will lead to hardship for many people. A situation will arise where the bank managers will be calling in the county managers and telling them that matters are out of hand.
South Tipperary has the best record in the country for the collection of water charges, at about 98 per cent. Most of the schemes came about through people putting their own group water schemes in place over the last 25 to 30 years. In 1968 a large scheme was developed in my area for over 300 houses at enormous hardship and cost to those concerned. We all contributed our share, private householders, cottiers and farmers. We got a grant from the Department but we provided a top class water supply scheme and handed it over to the county council. After all that hardship and expense we are now told that nobody can be cut off.
A "pay nothing" culture has developed. Ultimately, it is the taxpayer who is paying for the houses, roads and water supply, who will be bled again or there will be more reckless borrowing. This is a reckless, unnecessary Bill. As I said, rainbows come and go but the expense of maintaining a proper water supply remains and has to be paid for. There are no free lunches. It is sad this has come about as there was no need for it.
The present Tánaiste, Deputy Spring, introduced charges in the early 1980s and a U-turn is now being made. Where is the crock of gold? We hear a lot about transparency and accountability but the Government should come clean and tell us if it will tax people more or borrow more to make up the £50 million. The local authorities will cave in. As it is they are paying unnecessary interest to the banks just to keep afloat.
I wish the Minister of State, Deputy Allen, well even though Cork put Tipperary out of the hurling championship. The greatest growth industry in the country over the last 25 years has been the employment of consultants. What a great merry-go-round it is. The beef tribunal would be seen as nothing if an analysis was done of the amount of money spent by local authorities and Departments employing consultants. There have been so many reports on local authority reform in the last 20 years they would make a pile as high as Nelson's Column — if it was still standing — all at enormous expense to the taxpayer.
A consultant's report is a joke as it only puts off the evil day. A report may be produced by the end of the year, the Department officials will examine it for another nine months, there will then be an election, nothing will be done and the report will be put in the pile with all the others. It is sad state of affairs for a small country with a small base of taxpayers who are paying too much and also have to pay rates.
The waiver scheme operated by local authorities has been very fair. Some people want to blackguard the system, pay no rent on their house and no water charges, but they have two or three televisions and a car, indeed, a high standard of living generally. I am in favour of looking after the unemployed, the sick and the handicapped. However, one must render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's; someone has to pay the bill. We cannot continue borrowing and taxing people because it has gone too far already.
This is a positive development for the legal profession as it will make a mint in mock courts all over the country. This will be better than any beef tribunal and the legal profession is clapping its hands in anticipation. The cost of the legal aid system will rocket and the taxpayer will again be caught.
There was no need for this Bill as the waiver scheme is fair and operated with great care. I am disappointed the Government has introduced it. Local authorities have enough problems keeping afloat without having to follow this course. People in rural areas will suffer because, for health and other reasons, repairs will be carried out in the villages and towns. However, if there is a breakdown in rural areas it will be four or five days before it is repaired because the councils do not have the funds.
In many cases the rural communities provided their own water supply schemes at their own expense. I was a member of the scheme in my area in the late 1960s. A large scheme involves a lot of work and responsibility. These people will now be pushed aside and told they do not matter; the council will tell them that the supply faults will not be repaired immediately. This is already happening and will lead to chaos in the months ahead. The councils have no money. Perhaps the Minister has a crock of gold somewhere. I advise him not to tax the people any more or borrow any more because the people will punish him for it.
Perhaps at this late stage a little common sense might prevail and this unnecessary Bill will be withdrawn. All the false promises about reductions in taxation and maintaining borrowing at a proper level are moonshine. This Bill will lead to more taxation and borrowing and that will be unfortunate for us all.
I did not intend to contribute to the debate, but I felt something was amiss when I heard the arguments being put forward. The Minister said the Government had agreed to amend the Local Government (Sanitary Services) Act, 1962, to delimit the power of local authorities. However, since 1974 when I first became a member of a local authority, I have heard people, who are members of the parties in Government and members of local authorities, make the case that powers should not continue to be removed from local authorities.
This Bill removes powers from local authorities; it takes power from local representatives on county and urban councils and corporations to make a case to the county manager or sanitary officer that a person should be granted a full or part waiver of the water charge. I totally disagree with the Bill from that point of view. The position should have been allowed to stand.
I congratulate Senator McDonagh for taking the trouble to write to every local authority to find out how many consumers were disconnected. The Senator said there were no disconnections in one county, 17 in another area over a period of five years and 19 in another county. If there are so few disconnections, why was it necessary to introduce a Bill to allow people to be brought to court so that their supplies could be disconnected? I am only posing these questions and I will not labour the point.
If somebody is taken to court, to what year does the case relate since water rates are paid in advance? For example, although one has paid water rates for the period up to the end of December 1995 one has not yet received supply for that entire period. How can somebody be taken to court until they have received the full amount of their goods? It is similar to one going into a shop and the shopkeeper saying that one must pay for an item but wait until the end of the year to receive it. This is what local authorities are doing. In a legal context, how can a person be taken to court on the basis of something which they have not yet received?
The Minister wishes to reply to the debate but I wanted to make these points. The Bill erodes the powers of county councillors. If there are so few disconnections, why is this Bill necessary?
I fully agree with the Bill. Water is so important that if a supply is to be disconnected, an application should be made in court and a court order obtained. The vast majority of waivers are granted and there are no problems in that regard. However, I have doubts about the way in which many waivers were administered. We are talking about very poor people and we must be careful to protect their rights. The courts are the best arbitrators in that regard.
I thank Senators for their contributions to the debate. In so far as time allows, I hope to address the main issues raised.
The Bill meets the commitment in the Government policy agreement to delimit the power of local authorities to disconnect domestic water supplies for non payment of a water charge. It balances administrative efficiency with social considerations. It is essential that the Bill, which sets out a clear series of steps which must be followed by local authorities prior to disconnection, will not jeopardise the ability of local authorities to raise their own revenue. The evidence from local authority collection rates for the first quarter of 1995 clearly demonstrates this is not the case. I will return to this point later.
By giving statutory backing to the new procedures, the Bill will protect an essential element of local democracy, the ability of local government structures to generate the revenue necessary to provide and maintain an acceptable level of services and facilities while, at the same time, providing protection to individual citizens. It will not impose any unnecessary workload on the authorities.
The Bill is, in essence, a charter for people who pay water charges. The power to disconnect will remain with the local authorities but only where they follow a set of statutory procedures, which will involve the notification of consumers and the procurement of a court order. These procedures will ensure that consumers are fully aware, through the issue of the initial bill, reminders and warning notices, of the consequences of refusing to pay an overdue charge.
The Bill protects those who cannot afford to pay. The effect of water charges on people on low incomes has been fully considered by the Government which has proposed that a water supply may not be disconnected in cases where failure to pay the charge is due to hardship. We are also conscious of the need to ensure that the circumstances of all members of the household are taken into account by the court in considering an application from a local authority to disconnect.
In recognition of the worry that possible disconnection could cause to people on low incomes, the Bill prohibits disconnection in any cases where a water charge waiver has been granted on the grounds of hardship. Restricting disconnection on the grounds of hardship will not significantly affect local authority income as the majority of these cases already come within the scope of these waiver schemes. We should not make any apologies for these measures which are designed to protect the less well off in our society.
Senator Daly has a problem with sections of the Bill in so far as they provide that the personal and household circumstances of consumers will be taken into account by the courts when considering an application to disconnect a water supply. Is the Senator suggesting, for example, that if a member of a household is seriously ill and has no control over whether the charge is paid, the local authority should be empowered to cut off the supply? Senator Daly also mentioned dealing with consumers in a sensible and humane way. I submit that this proviso, which would allow the personal and household circumstances to be taken into account, is a move towards dealing with the issue of disconnection in a sensible and humane way.
Senator Daly does not seem to understand what coalition Government involves. The Bill was promised in the policy document agreed by the three parties in Government. Consensus and coalition is all about agreement between different parties.
Debate adjourned.