Section 2 enables a local authority to discontinue supply of water only in circumstances where it has been authorised to do so by a court order. In the preparation of this section, did the Minister have regard and access to the type of legal costs which would be involved for local authorities?
Local Government (Delimitation of Water Supply Disconnection Powers) Bill, 1995: Committee Stage.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Question proposed: "That section 2 stand part of the Bill."
Section 2 is included to remove any doubt as to the liability for a domestic water charge. The section specifies that the consumer is liable for such a charge. In relation to the specific question raised by the Deputy, it was felt, after much consideration that the vast majority of consumers, who are liable for a charge and who had a charge levied on them by the democratic decision of the local or sanitary authority concerned, will pay. There will be no significant cost involved in the implementation of the measure.
Question put and declared carried.
SECTION 3.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 4, subsection (5), line 24, to delete "a charge" and substitute "the charge".
Section 3 (5) provides that a sanitary authority shall not discontinue a water supply in any case where a full or part waiver of a charge has been granted. The purpose of this technical amendment is to avoid any ambiguity or doubt which might arise in a case where a consumer was granted a waiver in the past but was not granted a waiver in respect of the specific charge which is now the subject of the sought discontinuance of supply. The amendment will ensure that a local authority is empowered to disconnect a water supply in respect of an unpaid water charge if a waiver was not granted in respect of that specific charge.
For example, if somebody who was unemployed applied for a waiver and was granted it in a specific year and in the following year he or she was in full employment and was not granted a waiver, the fact that a pervious waiver had been granted would not affect the right of the sanitary authority to seek a disconnection of supply in respect of the properly levied new charge.
I have no difficulty with the amendment. I wondered why the provision was included as it appeared to open the door to the possibility that somebody who was granted a waiver in times of hardship would gain some benefit from it when their circumstances changed. I accept the amendment.
In the context of the Minister's deliberations on this area, did he receive a breakdown from local authorities of the number of people whose water supply was discontinued? Did he receive a breakdown of the criteria used by local authorities in this regard? During the Second Stage debate, the Minister was at pains to indicate that local authorities were fair minded with regard to these provisions. Nonetheless, he thought it necessary to make some changes. Did the Minister have information on the extent to which this provision was being used by local authorities? Why did he feel it necessary to include this measure?
As the Minister is aware, approximately 500,000 householders are liable for service charges. I understand about 900 people had their water supply discontinued last year by local authorities. This represents less than 0.2 per cent of those liable for charges. If this provision does not apply to 98 per cent of those involved, the Minister must have some extremely good information from a variety of local authorities which would enable him to push forward the provisions in the Bill.
I thank the Deputy for supporting the amendment which sets about removing any possibility of ambiguity in relation to the intent of the measure. This legislation is not earth shattering. Its intention is to provide clarity in relation to the controversial issue of local authority charges. All Members who have served at local and national level are aware this area has been fraught with difficulty. The measure will have a number of positive consequences. It will provide a national framework in which every local authority will know where it stands. More importantly, consumers will know where they stand. They will be aware of the powers of local authorities and there will not be differences in the implementation of powers which, as the Deputy correctly points out, has been the case heretofore. The vast majority of consumers will continue to pay charges as levied on time. This is the nature of the system and as it should be.
As I indicated on Second Stage, the announcement of this measure and its implementation by circular letter earlier this year has had no adverse impact on the collection rates of lawfully levied charges. As I indicated to several Opposition Deputies in respect of their counties, the level of charges received by local authorities to date is an increase on the level available this time last year. The measure brings transparency and clarity in relation to this entire issue. Regarding the Deputy's specific questions, the number of disconnections carried out by county councils and county borough corporations in 1994 amounted to 910; one can work out the proportion from the total number of approximately 480,000 households. A very small number of households were disconnected for non-payment of charges. This indicates that the issue is not of huge significance. I do not envisage that they will resort in large numbers to the courts. That is why I indicated to Deputy Smith previously that local authorities will not incur a significant increase in costs arising from this provision. However, local authorities will now be certain as to were they stand and the procedures to be followed. Consumers also will be more certain of their rights and of the consequences of not fulfilling their responsibility to meet lawfully levied charges when they clearly have an ability to meet them.
The Minister is aware of the reluctance on the part of local authorities to go to court on these issues, not least because of the costs involved and the administrative and other delays. Generally, local authorities use court proceedings as a last resort and that is what is advocated for the future. The difference of opinion arises because local authorities will no longer have the power to disconnect water supplies in the former manner — not that it was exercised but they had the capacity to issue the threat. This procedure was exercised as a last resort but that is the fundamental difference.
There is a comparison between the collection rates this year and last year, but I do not think the problems arise in the first half of the year. When the procedures are put in place there will be a three months period during which the obligations to issue reminders and so on under this Bill will have to be met. Local authorities will not be in a position to take action on foot of the provisions before he end of the year.
This is a technical amendment and we must dispose of it before discussing the section.
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 3, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
I wish to clarify a number of points. When this Bill is enacted what additional powers will be given to local authorities? Last year there were 910 disconnections so, clearly, local authorities had the power to disconnect, which is done when every other effort has failed. That is the way it has been to date and the way it ought to be. I am satisfied it would continue if this legislation were never enacted.
It is difficult to accept that local authorities will not face an additional cost when these new procedures are put in place. Under the provisions of the Bill six very clear steps will have to be undertaken before a local authority can proceed to disconnect. Will some of the moneys paid by compliant citizens to provide better public services be eaten up in covering the cost of the bureaucracy as a result of the enactment of this Bill?
Will there be uniformity in all local authorities? Some local authorities, notably my own, have never disconnected the water supply, but a previous Cork city manager proceeded to bring an action against five people who clearly were in a position to pay their water charges but consistently refused to pay and this resulted in five people being imprisoned in Cork prison. I think that is very undesirable. Do city managers still have the option to disconnect or to send people to prison for non-payment of moneys due? I favour the disconnection option which, as I already said, only happens when every other method has failed.
The provisions of this measure were signalled at the formation of the Government and were part of the negotiations to form it. They were implemented by way of circular from my Department in April and have already taken effect.
In response to the question on what effect the measures had on collection rates, the collection rates across the country are uniformly high and are mainly better than last year. In fact, one of the most dramatic increases — I am sure it has nothing to do with the change of Minister — has been the dramatic improvement in the collection rate in Tipperary North Riding where in the period January-March 1994 the local authority collected £66,918 in domestic service charges and for the comparable period this year, £144,884. The new regime has not adversely affected the collection rate and when this Bill is enacted by the Oireachtas it will be put on a statutory basis.
People question whether those who do not pay their charges get away with it. Now we are setting out the procedures clearly and the warning on the power of disconnection can be given as part of a reminder process. The person is issued with a notice to pay the water charges, then sent a reminder and a warning and a further reminder, a warning and, finally, notice is served to pay their charges or face court action. That is a reasonable series of measures and in this era of computerisation it is hardly terribly onerous on local authorities to issue these notices. It will be an effective mechanism for ensuring there compliance.
Under this Bill, local authorities will not have additional powers but I hope there will not be a situation where two or three counties resort to disconnect water supplies in great numbers whereas other local authorities will decide that disconnection will never be used in their functional area, leading people to say that disconnection is a matter of geography. There is a need for a national policy and I am legislating for it. I do not believe these procedures will impose a significant additional cost on local authorities as they can factor this into the normal billing system. I do not believe that they would resort to cutting off the water supply without giving sufficient warnings.
What are we doing here?
The problem for local authorities is that they do not know how many warning notices they should give, whether it should be ten or one. I am setting out what is appropriate and not alone local authorities but consumers will know that after the statutory provisions of the Bill have been enacted, there will be a procedure whereby if they are in a position to pay charges lawfully levied on them and refuse to do so, they can be disconnected in accordance with this Statute. It clarifies matters for the consumer and for the local authority. A system can be put in place that will not place an onerous burden on local authorities and that is what is happening in any event. I am concerned about jailing consumers for the non-payment of charges. This is not appropriate from the justice perspective. There are enough criminals who should be in jail and the time of the court and the prison system should not be wasted in jailing these consumers. This is a much better system and it has been arrived at through a process of negotiation. I have already discerned that it has broad acceptance among the community and the increase in the rates collected is the surest evidence of this.
The Minister should not expound to the House the great deal and arrangements made when the Government was formed as it is well known how that deal was made. I will not delay the House by outlining how Democratic Left outmanoeuvred Fine Gael and Labour on this issue.
It might be interesting to hear the Deputy's views on it.
The Minister is doing a fantastic job in giving a degree of credibility to a measure which he does not support with any great commitment. I am not saying I did not attempt to do the same — as a democrat one must accept measures with which one disagrees — but the Minister is doing a good job in presenting this measure as something which it clearly is not.
It is outrageous to compare the position in Tipperary this year and last year as obviously the tax incentive will have been availed of by compliant taxpayers.
It was brought in by a good Government.
Local authorities are also giving incentives to encourage early payment in an effort to offset other financial problems. I have made it clear from the outset that I do not envisage a problem during the first six months. Rather I envisage problems at the end of this year and early next year when a significant number of people will have recourse to the courts.
This is not only about the payment of rates. As the Minister well knows, this is a political matter in a number of constituencies. A small but dominant element in the Government has advocated the abolition of service charges and has advised its supporters not to pay them. This is why many people who can well afford to pay service charges do not pay them. Regardless of how it is camouflaged or presented, this measure will encourage non-compliance by those who have fought against the payment of service charges for the past ten years. Given the increase in the number of households paying charges each year, many of us believed that the debate about this issue had begun to die down. The Minister is pondering to a minority by dealing with the issue in this way.
I want to make it absolutely clear that we are dealing exclusively with people who can afford to pay these charges. Hardship cases should be dealt with in as careful and compassionate a way as possible. I acknowledge that local authorities do this for the most part but there may be cases where they can do better. We are dealing exclusively with people who do not want to pay a percentage of the cost of local authority services. Section 3 will encourage non-compliance and I forecast a significant increase in court cases by the end of the year. The courts are already clogged up and we do not need additional measures which will give rise to more cases. If local authorities cannot obtain these funds after exhaustive efforts then it is much better to disconnect the water supply rather than fill the prisons with people who oppose the payment of charges on a political rather than a resource basis.
This measure will not encourage non-compliance, as evidenced from the increase in collected charges since it was put in place by way of circular letter. Obviously history will prove which one of us was correct. I am grateful to the Deputy for praising the tax incentive introduced by the Government to deal with a significant area of concern. For good or ill many people believed that when local charges and rates were abolished they were subsumed into central Government taxes. It is important to give people who pay a local charge some amelioration or reduction in their central tax bill. This is a fair and good measure and it will boost the collection rate.
On the general point about a party's principled decision to oppose service charges, this is legitimate and valid. We live in a democracy and political parties are entitled to express their point of view. The Deputy knows better than most of us the precarious situation in regard to local government funding. In the time available to me before the next election — the electorate and others will decide whether I am a Minister in the next Government — I will try to address the issue of local government funding. This measure will not impact one way or the other on whether we want to fund a local government system. I happen to believe we do and the Government has taken a number of initiatives to drive this process. I hope the Deputies and parties opposite will engage in that process. In the next few years we have to decide whether we want to fund and have an effective local government system or whether we are content with the present system which is not in accordance with the norm in the rest of Europe and is not in the best interests of administration in the State.
We will not have an opportunity today to have a full debate on the best way to fund local authorities in the future. This is a vexed and difficult question and it will take some time to resolve. Fianna Fáil will be extremely anxious to contribute to this debate. I attended a public meeting last weekend in connection with the condition of county roads in the Sliabh Felim area, Kilcommon and Rearcross, in the constituency of north Tipperary. The Minister is aware that the local authority provision for county roads is heading for a crisis. This is the only service many people obtain from a local authority, many of whom are using roads which are unacceptable and resources will have to be provided on a priority basis. It is unfair that many people have to suffer because of the condition of the roads. School buses are rerouted and people have to tolerate all kinds of inconveniences, including damage to their vehicles. This problem has been growing for some time. Significantly increased resources have been provided by the State but they are not sufficient to meet the need. There would be all party agreement if this money were made available, regardless of where the resources come from. People living in areas where there are poor roads are entitled to a decent roadway on which to travel to work, to church, to the shops, to schools, etc. It is a shame that we are not providing such a service.
The Minister has indicated to the House the amount of money that will be available this year. I am willing to wait until the end of the year to discuss this matter in greater detail with him. Will he give a breakdown by local authority of the 900 disconnections and court actions that were taken and will he tell us if a small number of local authorities opted for going to court as distinct from disconnection? It appears that those local authorities which took the option of disconnection were more successful, had lower costs and were equally sensitive to ensuring that action would be taken only where people had the resources to pay. Has the Minister available figures for local authorities which took either procedure, that is taking an individual to court for non-payment of service charges or disconnection? My information is that no local authority was involved in either a court procedure or a disconnection unless the household income was sufficient to meet this requirement. It would be helpful if we had figures which would give us an idea of the underlying strategy behind these provisions.
The Minister underestimates local authorities, county managers and county secretaries if he believes they would require a legal instrument to adopt legal procedures. They are aware they would be required to send notices, reminders——
They have done it every year.
——and an official. To try to tell us it is essential to have these provisions laid down in this way before he could be sure local authorities would take appropriate action would undermine confidence not only in the management of local authorities but it would be absurd in the context of the history and experience we have with local authorities not only in legal matters but in other areas. When the circular was sent out indicating that the new measures would be enacted, the Minister admitted that that was probably happening at that time. This would lead us to the view that the provision was unnecessary. It is fair to say that local authorities would be in a position to make these judgments themselves. If we are talking about true democracy and local democracy it would mean less interference where each county and region would express itself in its own way. However, there can be differences. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with one local authority adopting a different procedure from another. Future reports on local government reform may contain this type of proposal. The same law must be applied everywhere but discretion for local authorities is a valuable asset.
I am anxious to ascertain what information the Minister has on the variation between local authorities and which of the options they adopt, disconnection or court action, and if additional funds will be provided. I am willing to bet that nobody who has resisted or has been advised to resist the payment of service charges by Democratic Left has paid those charges on foot of the income tax incentive, legal provisions or letters. Deputy Lynch said last week she was totally opposed to service charges. I presume she pays her own service charges but probably does not mind if some of her supporters go to jail.
I made my position on local authorities clear at the conclusion of Second Stage this morning. I have the highest regard for the officials at local authority level. They have acted reasonably in the past and I made no bones about that. There is nothing wrong with wanting to have a measure that sets out for local authority officials and the consumer what we regard as an acceptable procedure, whether that procedure is already the norm or not. We should set down guidelines telling the county manager whether two or 22 notices is adequate. The guidelines have been provided and are to be incorporated in statute. That is fair and reasonable and will strengthen rather than diminish local authorities.
I am largely in agreement with the point made by the Deputy about a common rule of law across the country. However, it must be a part of the whole issue of local democracy and local autonomy that there would not be a common rule of law in every detail operating in every separate local authority. There will be regional and county variations which will be tailored to suit the needs of the county or region, and that is understandable.
As more authority is devolved to local authorities — as I have already done in relation to taxis and hackneys — there will be different attitudes from different local authorities in relation to the licensing system. There will be differences but there are some issues on which there should be a common approach nationally, one of which is the right of access to water. One's right to access to water should not be arbitrary depending on the geographical area. That is being put right by statute. Deputy Smith asked a specific question about the data available. I do not have a breakdown for every household in the country.
A breakdown by county.
Figures for 1994, the latest year for which data are available, indicate that 910 disconnections were carried out last year by County Councils and County Borough Corporations, the bulk of which was in two counties. Kildare County Council carried out 265 disconnections; 150 in Meath; 85 in Donegal and 70 in Westmeath County Council. The figures for the remaining counties were relatively small. The fact that one county council accounts for the bulk of disconnections, 265, reflects the attitude of the local county manager in pursuing debts. It would be of benefit if consumers knew that there is to be a common approach and common procedures.
The autonomy of local authorities is not affected by this legislative measure. They can decide in the first instance whether a charge should be imposed and if there should be a waiver scheme. It would also be a matter for them to follow up.
There is such a thing as poetic licence. The Minister is using ministerial licence in regarding this legislation as an access to water Bill. He is taking the matter to extremes. Even the extremists in the Labour Party could not accept this. Deputy Ferris and Deputy Ryan are shocked. In deference to democratic procedures, they are prepared to remain quiet and allow me to expose the weaknesses in the Minister's arguments. I hope for the remainder of the debate he will deal with reality and not seek to support a Bill which has nothing to do with access to water.
The Deputy has run out of arguments.
A sum of £50 million is being raised by way of service charges. This forms an essential part of local authority finances and is used to keep the water flowing through the tap. To represent it as other than that beggars description.
The Deputy has coaxed me to enter the debate. There are varying views on the subject of water charges and the disconnection of supplies. I am a member of two local authorities and the number of disconnections in south Tipperary is probably the lowest in the country. Let me give the example of a social welfare recipient who applied for and was granted maximum relief. The water charge at the time was £5 per year. The following year he received a bill for £120 but, because of an inability to grasp the seriousness of the matter, ignored all notices with the result that his water supply was cut off. If this Bill had been in place this would not have happened. As he was unable to meet the cost of reconnection — the local authority refused to do this — a charity was asked to do so.
The Minister mentioned that the local authorities retain much control. This was provided for in the Bill which allowed local authorities to impose charges in urban areas. That is the reason some authorities have not imposed a charge. This has created many problems in counties where charges have been introduced in urban areas, although such charges have always been payable in rural areas and a waiver scheme is operated.
The Minister should try to ensure uniformity, particularly when it comes to the operation of a waiver scheme. There are different interpretations even within counties. Some authorities were on the point of being disbanded because certain people with responsibilities, including well known people in my own constituency, used this matter as a stick with which to beat the other members of the council into submission. They were not prepared to accept responsibility even though they held prestigious positions.
Factors, such as inability to pay, should be taken into account. Social welfare recipients and the elderly in particular should be exempt. Elderly persons in their seventies and eighties will not qualify where a son or daughter in receipt of social welfare is living with them, although, in many instances, the son or daughter concerned contributes little, if anything, to the household budget.
Social welfare recipients with a number of children do not qualify for relief because the figure is pitched at either £100 or £115. This means that a person on the dole with five or six children has to pay the charges. There are, therefore, major anomalies in the system. When the charges were first introduced the then Minister indicated that social welfare recipients should be granted relief. This was taken to mean that social welfare recipients with children would be exempt and that household income would not be the sole criterion.
The Minister will confirm that the collection rate for my county is one of the highest in the country, but there are anomalies in the waiver scheme. I ask the Minister to address the matter on a countrywide basis so that people in County Tipperary will not feel aggrieved if people in County Dublin are not asked to pay water charges or if social welfare recipients in County Wexford are treated differently. It should be recognised that this is an essential service which has to be paid for until the overall question of local authority funding has been addressed. Until then we will have to cater for those who cannot afford to pay.
Deputy Ferris has made a fair point, but it is one which will have to be addressed at local level. Since we started business this morning we seem to have been doing things which are contradictory. The Minister who steered the Casual Trading Bill through the House was in favour of devolving all powers. In this Bill power has already been devolved. It will be difficult to decide how much direction we, as legislators, should give to county and city managers who should have discretion in administering the waiver scheme within certain guidelines.
I agree with Deputy Ferris that it can be the source of great resentment when it emerges that service charges are not imposed in a particular local authority area and, as a consequence, some people may not pay them. It is a source of resentment that no charges have been payable in Dublin city, for example for a number of years.
There is increased awareness that service charges must be paid. I do not know which factor has led more and more people to this conclusion. When people travel abroad on holidays they see that services are organised to a high standard in towns and cities where there is a system of local taxation which is spent providing a decent local service.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
Sitting suspended at 1.30 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.