Order of Business. - Local Government (Financial Provisions) Bill, 2000: Second Stage.
Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
Minister of State at the Department of the Environment and Local Government (Mr. D. Wallace): This Bill has been introduced at short notice and I trust that the House will understand the good reason which prompted Government to take this approach. It is essential that we move quickly to address a legal doubt which has emerged relating to the powers of local authorities to make a charge for services which they are required or empowered to provide under current legislation. The basic objective of this short Bill is to put beyond doubt the commonly understood position regarding the powers currently available to local authorities to charge for services. Equally, it is designed to validate the making and recovery of any such charges made to date.
The Bill is straightforward in underpinning what we all understood as the prevailing position – no new or additional powers are proposed relating to local authority charges. The prevailing position is grounded in the general provisions of the Local Government (Financial Provisions) (No. 2) Act, 1983, which enables local authorities to levy charges in respect of services which they provide and is relied on where current legislation which requires or empowers the authorities to provide such services does not specifically address the question of charges.
Doubt has arisen because of changes introduced under the Waste Management Act, 1996. In creating an up-to-date and comprehensive legislative framework for modern waste management, that Act repealed public health legislation dealing with waste and dating back to 1978 and 1907. At the time, it was clearly envisaged and understood that local authorities could and would continue to provide waste collection and disposal services and, accordingly, would continue to levy waste charges. However, because of the general reliance on the 1983 financial provisions legislation, it was not considered necessary to make specific provision for charging in the 1996 Act. The responsibilities of local authorities for the collection of household waste are clearly set out in Part IV of the Waste Management Act. Subsequent to its enactment, the then Government referred in the December 1996 policy document Better Local Government to waste charges as, "An important instrument in waste management policy", and stated that, "The option must be retained to allow local authorities . . . to delay . . . costs through charges." Use of economic instruments to address waste was also explicitly endorsed by Sustainable Development: A Strategy for Ireland, the Government policy on sustainable development, published in April 1997.
The Government's approach to waste charges remains clear-cut. In Changing our Ways, the October 1998 policy statement on waste management, we pointed out that by ensuring waste generators pay directly the full costs of waste collection, treatment and disposal, public attention can be focused on waste generation and an incentive provided towards waste reduction.
For reasons of equity and to secure a direct reduction incentive, local authorities were encouraged to review their approach to charges with a view to introducing weight-related charging to the fullest extent possible. As I have already said, section 2 of the Local Government (Financial Provisions) (No. 2) Act, 1983, provides that where any existing enactment requires or enables a local authority to provide a service, but does not empower the authority to charge for that service, the enactment involved is deemed to empower the authority accordingly. An existing enactment is defined, under section 1 of the 1983 Act, in a manner which includes that enactment as amended or extended.
The Waste Management Act, 1996, imposed provisions equivalent to those of the public health legislation, but updated them regarding local authority waste management functions. Accordingly, and taking account also of the provisions of section 20 of the Interpretation Act, 1937, dealing with the construction of references to repealed statutes and revoked instruments, it has been considered that local authorities are entitled to rely on the 1983 Act for the making of charges in respect of waste services, even though the relevant pre-1993 enactments were repealed.
However, a view could be advanced which is contrary to this general understanding, which suggested that reliance on the 1983 Act to levy charges might be unsound, if the relevant subsequent legislation empowering or requiring the provision of a service does not explicitly purport to amend or replace pre-1983 legislation. This new Bill is intended to put this matter beyond doubt and validate relevant charges made to date.
It must be appreciated that local authority charges, other than waste charges made under the 1983 Act, may be affected. The Government, therefore, cannot allow uncertainty to prevail. The question may be asked why we are dealing with this matter by means of emergency legislation, when no apparent problem exists and no legal proceedings have been taken challenging the 1983 legislation on the matter in question.
We are quite properly moving to address a legal doubt before any such legal proceedings are initiated, because of the potential implications for the revenue base of local authorities. Once a doubt arises over the validity of any charge levied by local authorities, there is the possibility that it could, in a broader sense, undermine the entire income local authorities have included in their estimates. Charges form a very important part of the income of local authorities. On the basis of the Estimates for 1999, it is estimated that charges for goods and services contributed £443 million to local authorities out of current expenditure of £1.6 billion. That is about 27% of their total income.
Should a notion gain currency that any charge levied by a local authority is not founded in law, it could sow the seeds of uncertainty and doubt with regard to all charges and could, possibly, start a movement against the payment of all valid charges and payments which are critical to the local authorities. Such an outcome could undermine the financial position of local authorities and, therefore, their ability to provide necessary services to an acceptable standard. I am sure no Member would like to contemplate that scenario. Accordingly, it was important to act quickly.
The substantive sections of this Bill are sections 2 to 4. Section 2 substitutes a revised definition for the definition of "existing enactment" in the 1983 Act. The effect of this is to ensure that an "existing enactment" will mean any enactment in force on, or at any time after, the commencement of the 1983 Act, up to the passing of this Bill.
Section 3 validates certain charges made by local authorities and provides that a relevant charge made by a local authority, by virtue of section 2 of the 1983 Act, is deemed to have been validly made and may be recovered as validly and effectively as if this Act had been in operation at the time of the making of the charge.
Section 4 provides that this Act will not prejudice any proceedings that might have been initiated prior to the publication of the Bill in relation to the validity of a charge made by virtue of section 2 of the 1983 Act.
As I have said, the Bill does nothing more than to confirm the status quo as it is generally understood. We are neither extending nor changing in any way the current powers of local authorities to charge for services they provide under existing law, nor will this Bill make any provision which would enable local authorities to charge for services required or empowered to be provided under any future legislation. The Bill has no effect in relation to any existing legislation which prohibits the imposition of charges for any local authority service. The sole intention behind this legislation is to provide legal certainty in regard to the powers of local authorities to rely on the Local Government (Financial Provisions)(No. 2) Act, 1983, to charge for services they provide.
I commend the Bill to the House.
This is an extraordinary Bill. The speed with which it passed through the Dáil and with which it is intended to pass through the Seanad is extraordinary. It may not be the fastest Bill to clear both Houses, but it would be up there with other contenders for the Guinness Book of Records. I welcome the Minister of State, but I ask why he is here, as I found no validity for this legislation when studying the 1983 Act. It is a marvel the way his party has done an about face regarding that Act. I was in the Dáil when it was enacted and the then Opposition – the Minister of State's party – was very much against it. I am glad to see an about face and the possibility of change.
The Minister of State spoke about doubts, possibilities and views that could be advanced, but he did not say that the 1983 Act was in doubt. Did someone challenge it? I asked colleagues and looked in the newspapers but I found no challenges to it. Where did the challenge come from? It would be wonderful to know on what basis it could be challenged and the Minister of State might tell us in detail why this change has been introduced when replying.
We have missed the opportunity to examine the purpose of raising funds for local authorities through charges on waste. I have asked repeatedly for a debate on waste recycling, incineration, gasification and the other methods open to us to ensure the half ton of waste each individual in Ireland generates can be properly treated. I know the Government's aim is to increase the amount of recycled waste to 37%, with a long-term view to increasing that figure to 50%. However, we have only reached 4%, which indicates there is no genuine commitment from the Government to ensure that recycling takes its proper place as the best method for eliminating waste.
It might be argued that if one takes a particular form of waste, such as paper or cardboard, market forces dictate whether there is any value in collecting and recycling it. However, the Government should think positively. If the market collapses or is reduced, there should be a Government input to ensure materials are collected and recycled. When profits are being made there is no need for such investment, but when profits are not being made the Government must intervene through a public-private partnership, perhaps, to ensure recycling works.
All we have had thus far is lip service to recycling. I have asked for a debate on this matter time and again and this was an ideal opportunity to debate waste management and its costs. We know there is a commitment to the polluter pay ing, but what will that cost be? We should be able to give the public an idea at this stage of what they will be paying for and what will be expected of them in the future instead of having to see what it will cost every year and then announcing charges.
I remember when charges were imposed. I remember trying to enter my local authority offices when there were hundreds of people outside. I became so good at dodging placards that I felt I could have been on any All-Ireland team. The people became very good at swinging placards also, as they got a lot of practice. They were protesting to local authorities all over the country against what they saw as a second form of taxation and in one case local authority workers in a van in the sunny southeast were terrified by the rocking the protesters gave the van. Those protests have not gone away. The Minister of State has resurrected them in this Bill and brought attention back to those issues, although other Senators will argue that matter.
Local authorities should be able to generate some revenue themselves and they can decide where to spend that revenue. I have always held that view, but I also feel that people should know the level at which charges are set and what they are for. Recycling should be a priority and I reiterate that the Government has no commitment to recycling. For example, does any legislation deal with recycling cars? Even if a person does not want to scrap their car that car should be recycled, perhaps by the manufacturers, although I know attempts are being made to reduce the amount of non-recyclable material in cars. This principle should apply to other areas, such as electrical works. There is no genuine commitment to impose restrictions or penalties in this area if people do not recycle or produce recyclable material.
An obvious example of this is the use of plastic bags in shops, an issue referred to in the recent debate on litter. That debate was extraordinarily well-attended and lasted longer than expected because many Members have strong views on litter. We feel strongly about the use of plastic bags by shops and it is possible to introduce strict penalties on the production and sale of these bags. Sales assistants in every supermarket one goes into shove out a plastic bag for almost every product one buys. It is easier for the sales assistant and housewives are often glad to use those bags as bin liners. However, it is time to halt this process and to look at genuine recycling. The Government must do more than pay lip service – it will have to introduce legislation which will impose penalties.
The Minister of State should explain in detail why the legislation is necessary and where it came from. He referred to "doubt" and "possibilities" about which I am curious.
Mr. Walsh: I welcome the Minister of State to the House. I doubt Senator Coogan was serious in inferring that the Bill is not necessary—
More waste paper, possibly.
—and that the Minister decided to bring another Bill before the House without reason. It is obvious that if there was no legal doubt, we would not be debating this Bill. I compliment the Minister on the speed with which he has moved to prevent circumstances which could undermine the viability of local authorities. As I said before, for decades there has been far too much interference at national level in the funding of local authorities. An effort has been made more recently to put local authorities on a firmer footing. It would fly in the face of that policy to allow a legal challenge undermine up to 25% of the revenue which underpins local authority expenditure. We must consider the benefits of this expenditure to local communities – in rural and urban areas the quality of lifestyle of many people depends on the proper utilisation of scarce resources at local government level. The Minister must be commended on introducing this Bill. I am not a lawyer but I have no doubt that we would not be debating this Bill if there was no legal question. The revenue involved is £443 million, which is a considerable sum.
The polluter pays principle is recognised by the Department. The lack of logic of those who say there should not be charges for such a service is ludicrous. It is akin to someone arguing that electricity should be free or the television licence should be abolished, that State services should be paid from the Exchequer. I do not believe the public at large would accept this. In order to ensure the cost effectiveness of these services, it is good that many local authorities must secure funding to cover their provision. An anomaly arises in the case of waste. Many private operators are involved in the collection of waste and its transportation to dumps. They provide an excellent service and it would be unfair and probably in breach of the competition laws if local authorities put them out of business by deciding there should not be a charge for the service. Jobs would be lost as a consequence, which does not make sense.
I compliment the Minister on the introduction of the provision to allow one to charge the cost of waste disposal against one's tax liability. This makes sense and alleviates some of the effects on people. Most local authorities of which I am aware operate a waiver scheme which is effective in taking account of those who cannot pay because of hardship or whatever. However, the standard charge which applies in most local authorities is probably not conducive to an effective policy on waste disposal because it does not provide an incentive for people to reduce waste. Senator Coogan referred to recycling. Efforts are being made in this regard but successive Governments failed to adopt an enlightened approach to waste disposal. The EU has categorically stated its position on the polluter pays principle. Some Cohesion Funds, particularly those for South Dublin County Council, may be in doubt because we are not complying with the polluter pays principle. Those who articulate differently are as ridiculous as Deputy Howlin when he abolished water charges in a failed attempt to save Joan Burton's seat from Deputy Joe Higgins.
Who abolished the charges? Senator Walsh has a very short memory. What about 1977?
It was the greatest scandal of all time, if the Senator can remember. A little reflection might help.
Acting Chairman
I remind Senator Walsh that he should not invite comments and also that he should not refer to people who are not Members of the House and are not here to defend themselves.
Water charges were introduced by the then Minister, Deputy Spring, in 1983. My constituency colleague, when Minister, later disposed of them.
He did not introduce them. On a point of information—
Acting Chairman
Points of information are not recognised by the Chair.
On a point of order, first, the Senator may not refer to somebody who is not present in the House and, second, the Senator has not stated the facts—
Acting Chairman
The first part was a point of order which has already been dealt with.
—which are that he did not introduce service charges.
Acting Chairman
That is not a point of order.
He introduced the option.
The provision to introduce water charges was enacted in 1983 by the then Minister for the Environment, who was Leader of the Labour Party and Tánaiste in that Government. It is a matter for others to make their conclusions as to who the individual was.
Acting Chairman
Perhaps we should move on to other aspects of the Bill.
Funding from the EU has helped a great deal in facilitating the development of our economy and infrastructure and it is important that we comply with the spirit of the EU treaties and protocols we have signed.
This is a straightforward Bill which ensures the financial position of local authorities is not undermined. It is prudent to introduce this Bill, given the legal doubt, and the House should support it.
I agree with Senator Coogan that the manner in which this legislation was introduced is extremely unsatisfactory. We have received an adequate explanation of why the legislation is necessary. The general explanatory memorandum states it is for the avoidance of doubt and to validate certain charges, but we are not told what the doubt is or what precisely is being referred to. The explanatory memorandum states that the Bill will not affect court proceedings concerning the validity of any relevant charge where such proceedings were commenced before 18 April 2000. There seems to be a presumption that some proceedings have taken place, which the Minister has not mentioned.
Are we to be left in the dark as to why this legislation is so necessary that it must be rushed into the House without the Whips being consulted and without any Opposition Member being informed? We were not told this legislation would be before the House today. It is outrageous. The House has been insulted. We have not been consulted. That the Leader of the House should suddenly introduce this Bill and propose that all Stages of it be taken today without the slightest prior consultation undermines the credibility of the House and its procedures. For that reason alone this Bill should be thrown out of the House. As all Stages of the Bill must be taken today and the House is adjourning for the Easter recess today, Members on this side will not be able to debate amendments to the Bill – I intended to table a number of them – in a rational fashion with any possibility of their being considered in the other House. The way the House is being treated on this matter is a joke.
We have always regarded as essential that the Second Stage of a Bill should be taken separately from Committee Stage, and that Stage should be taken separately from the remaining Stages. Yet the taking of all Stages of this Bill today is being forced down our throats without the House having an opportunity to consider the merits of the Bill. The House has not been given sufficient explanatory information on the urgency of taking all Stages of this Bill today, the legal doubt in this area and whether court proceedings are pending in this matter. It is dangerous to introduce retrospective legislation. It is suspect and it is questionable whether it will stand up constitutionally. I would like the Minister of State to clarify specifically the reasons for taking all Stages of the Bill today so that we will have the benefit of knowing on what we will be voting.
From the point of view of the legal opinion sought by the Labour Party, this legislation is unnecessary. Any matters that might be covered under it are dealt with by the Interpretation Act. It covers matters that might be the subject of this legislation. I would like the Minister of State to indicate his legal advice as to why this legislation is necessary. It seems to have been introduced on the basis that there is some legal doubt in this area. What is that legal doubt?
This legislation deals with relevant charges imposed by local authorities. The Minister for the Environment and Local Government seems to be setting the scene for the introduction of new waste management charges. It seems he intends local authorities to impose a new service charge. The old water and service charges which the then Fianna Fáil Government irresponsibly disposed of in 1977 for pure political gain will be reintroduced as a new waste management charge and local authorities will be expected to impose waste management charges throughout the country. That will not happen.
The Deputy is totally misrepresenting the Bill.
Dublin Corporation has not accepted charges since the Minister's leader, the Taoiseach, was Leader of the Fianna Fáil group in the mid-1980s. It is not intended that local authorities would go down the road again of having a very divisive campaign whereby some householders would pay service charges and others would not and where legal action would be taken. There is great confusion as to what is happening in this area.
A divisive situation has arisen among local authorities since 1977 when a ridiculous decision was taken to remove from local authorities their major means of providing funds to enable them to carry out what they are obliged to do under law. That divisive situation will continue, irrespective of what is included in this legislation. The Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, fueled inflation by the manner in which he gave proportionately more in increases to those who were well off rather than to those on low incomes. The elderly, widows and widowers got a very small increase. A better approach would be for the Minister to give 2% off the top rate of tax to the local authorities in the form of a ring-fenced tranche of funds to resource them to deal with waste management rather than passing it back in tax relief to the PAYE workers. That is the only way to deal with this matter. The Minister for the Environment and Local Government is washing his hands of this matter by saying that each local authority must make its own arrangements.
The Deputy is misrepresenting the Bill and he knows that.
I am not misrepresenting it. I would be delighted if the Minister of State would tell me what this Bill is about. He has not done so.
The Senator was not present when I introduced the Bill.
The Minister of State will have an opportunity to reply to the debate and I would be delighted to find out precisely what this legislation is about. It seems to have been introduced by way of sleight of hand. We were told it is necessary but not why it is necessary. We have not been given evidence in terms of the legal opinion on this matter. The Minister of State has presented us with a pig in a poke and he expects us to rush through all Stages of this Bill on the one day.
The Senator's time is concluded.
The Chair said he would be generous.
Acting Chairman
He was generous to the other side. I was provoked and interrupted by the Minister of State.
Acting Chairman
The Chair treats all sides even-handedly. The Senator should be careful about making such comments.
I acknowledged that a speaker on the other side was given a few extra minutes when there was interruption.
This side was interrupted extensively.
Acting Chairman
Senator Costello is being given a few extra minutes on the same basis.
I deserve double time as the Minister of State interrupted me.
We do not need this legislation, but we should have a proper debate on how we should deal with litter, the rubbish we produce, the fact that all local authorities have to draw up a plan but do not have the necessary resources to do that properly, the need to enforce existing legislation in this area, how we should deal with the disposal of plastic material and the issue of dumps and incinerators. Those are the issues we should be debating, the nitty gritty of the problem facing us and how we should establish an effective mechanism to ensure that we are no longer the biggest polluters of Europe and that this is truly a green country.
I welcome the Minister of State to the House. I also welcome the debate on this Bill, but I am disappointed it has fallen to this level. To go back to basics, there are lies, damn lies and statistics. To deal with the statistics on this matter and what happened in 1977 or 1983, in 1983 water charges were introduced by the then Tánaiste, who comes from my constituency. He was embarrassed into abolishing them later because people in Dublin refused to pay service charges and a case was successfully brought against the Government in the High Court. It is amazing there is one law for one part of the country and another for another part.
There was a picket outside these Houses yesterday when protesters shouted "No way, no pay". Who will pay the charges? Somebody must pay for the service. Waste management presents a major problem to local authorities. There is talk of having regional waste disposal centres and incinerators in different areas, recycling etc. Who is to pay for that? Will it be the local authorities? Where will the money come from? Is everything to be free? Perhaps we will have a free Ireland. Maybe we should all stay at home, do no work, have free television, free water—
I thought that was the result of the 1977 decision by the Senator's leader at that time.
—and have somebody else pay for it. Perhaps somebody from outer space will pay for it.
The Senator has a very selective memory.
That is the record – 1977.
Senator Costello can go back to 1977 but I can talk about the Governments of 1973 and 1977, when 75% of rates were abolished. All we did was round the equation by getting rid of the other 25%. We took the bull by the horns.
History is not the Senator's strongest subject.
Acting Chairman
Perhaps Senator Kiely should speak to the Bill.
We are all local authority members. We have to run our local authorities and we are concerned about our roads and other infrastructure. Questions were raised as to the reason the legislation is being introduced. If a loophole exists, we have to close it. There is no such thing as a free lunch or a free bus ride. We have to pay our way in society. If people on one side of this House believe we should get everything free, we might as well all be on that side and we will have a great time. As the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, said, we will all have a party.
I welcome this legislation because a loophole exists that has to be closed. A mistake was made in 1996 by a Minister and that has to be corrected. Everyone makes mistakes, including those of us on this side of the House, although not very often. If matters have to be tidied up, we must do that and get on with the running of the country on behalf of the people, whether they are our senior citizens or our young people. We must make sure that this country is progressive and if that means having waste incinerators or whatever, we will have to move forward in that respect.
I thank Senators who spoke on the Bill. This is important legislation and I appreciate the concerns that have been expressed about the procedures associated with this debate, as well as the willingness of Senators to co-operate in the passage of the Bill. While the opportunity that Senators have had to consider the proposals has been somewhat limited, I hope they understand the reasons immediate action is necessary in relation to this issue.
Senators asked how this matter came to light. A question was raised by consultants engaged by the Department of the Environment and Local Government to advise on public private partnership arrangements for the purpose of implementing regional waste management plans. Shortly thereafter, and independently, advice to the same effect was received by Dublin Corporation, which is considering specific proposals for domestic waste charges as provided for in the Dublin region waste management plan.
A judgment was then formed, and confirmed by the Attorney General, that a doubt could be held to apply in relation to the validity of charges. As I mentioned at the outset, I am not aware of any legal challenge in this matter, though as is clearly laid out in the Bill this legislation would not prejudice any such challenge. That is contained in section 4.
Senators Coogan and Costello asked for a further explanation of the matter at issue. The immediate issue arose in relation to waste charges. Local authority waste management responsibilities were initially specified in the Public Health Acts of 1878 and 1907, and later under various regulations made under the European Communities Act, 1972.
The Waste Management Act, 1996, subsequently placed local authority waste management functions on a modern footing. Relevant provisions of the Public Health Acts of 1878 and 1907 were repealed by section 6(1) of the 1996 Act, with effect from 1 July 1996. Effectively, these were replaced by a range of obligations regarding waste collection services and the provision and operation of waste recovery and disposal facilities. De facto, however, local authorities continued to provide these waste services as before and it was clearly understood that they would also continue to charge for such services.
Section 2 of the 1983 Act provides that where any existing enactment requires or enables a local authority to provide a service, but does not empower the authority to charge for that service, such enactment shall be deemed to so empower that authority. "Existing enactment" in this context includes that enactment as amended or extended. Having regard to this provision and to the provisions of section 20 of the Interpretation Act, 1937, it was considered that local authorities are entitled to rely on the 1983 Act for the making of charges in respect of the usual waste collection and disposal services which they continued to provide under the 1996 Act.
Contrary to this general understanding, however, a view could be advanced that local authorities might not rely on the 1983 Act to levy waste charges, as the 1996 Act did not explicitly purport to replace the 1878 and 1907 provisions. The proposed Bill, among other things, puts this matter beyond doubt and validates waste charges made to date.
Senator Costello completely misrepresented the position regarding waste charges. The fact is that there is a legal imperative underpinning the imposition of domestic waste charges. The European Commission has made it clear that there is a legal requirement upon EU member states to ensure that, in accordance with the polluter pays principle, there is a system of charges for waste disposal applicable to all waste producers. To the extent that Irish local authorities exempt householders from waste charges, the Commission considers itself justified in taking an infringement proceeding against Ireland under Article 169 of the treaty. The Commission has indicated that it is reviewing progress in relation to the introduction of household waste charges to determine whether to initiate proceedings against Ireland. Community funds cannot be used for any waste project if a system of waste charges consistent with the requirements of EU legislation is not in place. In this regard, the Commission has suspended and may, as Senator Walsh mentioned, revoke Cohesion Fund grant assistance of over £6.5 million in respect of South Dublin County Council's baling station at Ballymount.
The issue of waivers has been raised. Local authorities are empowered under section 5 of the Local Government (Financial Provisions)(No. 2) Act, 1983, to waive all or part of a charge for the services they provide on the grounds of personal hardship. Decisions on whether to grant a waiver and the scale of such waivers are a matter for the local authority. Waivers have been in place for some years and have had regard to circulars issued by my Department recommending the adoption of a systematic approach in the assessment of applications and the provision of sufficient publicity regarding the operation of these schemes.
I must revert to my opening statement. The Government considers it essential that we con firm, without delay, the commonly understood position regarding the general powers currently available to local authorities to levy charges for the services they are statutorily empowered to provide. It is equally necessary to validate the making and recovery of any such charges made to date.
Local authorities must have legal certainty in this regard. The Government would have been derelict in its duty if it had not acted. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, there could have been very serious implications for local authority revenues generally and therefore for their ability to provide services to the general public in the event of a successful challenge to the legislation as it currently stands.
It is important to emphasise that we are simply confirming the general understanding in relation to existing legislation. The Bill underwrites the status quo. It does not in any way extend the current powers of local authorities to charge for services they provide under existing law. It does not introduce any power to charge for services which local authorities might be required or empowered to provide under any future legislation, and it does not overturn or affect any existing legislation which prohibits the imposition of charges for any local authority services i.e. domestic water supply.
As this legislation involves no change in current practice, and in the particular circumstances involved, I trust that Senators will accept my rationale. Once again, I acknowledge their co-operation.
Question put and declared carried.
