Water Charges to be Added to Rates Bills

by Jolly Red Giant - Socialist Party/CWI Wed Oct 10, 2007 19:17

Putting people before profit.

by mike - n/a Wed Oct 10, 2007 19:25

"Eamon McCann of the Socialist Workers' Party welcomed the changes arguing that £160 is lower then expected" Source please...

by Aquarius Wed Oct 10, 2007 19:29

The Irish News of 6 October 2007.

by Mike Wed Oct 10, 2007 19:36

..have to see this...

by Aquarius Wed Oct 10, 2007 19:52

The main point of this article is to get the information across about this development in the Water Charges issue. If you want to read up on McCann's position read it (do a google search!). From what I can see McCann sees it as a reform and because it's not as high as previously expected he welcomed it. I found it odd given it will be a battering-ram against non-payment, but really an aside. Look at the role that the main parties are playing! DUP, SF, SDLP and UUP all say they oppose water charges at election time. Now we have a SF minister proposing to criminalise non-payers. This is the real story here. Sinn Féin appear to get an anti-establishment vote down South but they are far from that! Just look at this story.

by anti water charges Wed Oct 10, 2007 22:34

I don't understand why the people on this thread are attacking Eamonn McCann for saying that what is being proposed has to be welcomed - maybe they didn't read the detail closely. He welcomed the proposals since it means no separate water charges and therefore no possibility of the "separate stream of revenue" that all the anti-water campaigners were fighting against. Basically, the proposals are for a return to the situation before - when we paid for water through the rates (where people living on benefits and low incomes get full rates rebates etc). So, it's a victory in relation to the charges . The big question, as McCann said, will be what happens to NI Water: will it stay a private company (GoCo) or be brought back into public hands.

by Séamus Thu Oct 11, 2007 16:03

The fact that we're not talking about a separate water charge distinct from the rates bill means that it will be more difficult for the water service to be privatised. No separate water charge taken care of by NI Water means that it won't fall into private hands when that GoCo would have been sold off (as was the plan). It is a victory of sorts. The matter is not finished however, and less of the sectarian point-scoring would be nice too.

by Non Payer Thu Oct 11, 2007 22:03

The Eamon McCann and Sinn Féin apologists are out to spin their respective party lines. This is totally designed to cut across non-payment of water charges. It will mean that Water Charges will be paid because to not pay rates is a criminal offence. This is not a step forward for the Campaign. It's a complication that has to be overcome with clear practival ideas. Sinn Fein have always backed the water charges. But SWP have stabbed people in the back. They're not committed to defeating water charges. Instead they want minor reforms that in the long run will make no difference. The NI water company still exists. Once payment is established there will be separate bills!

by Paul Vincent Thu Oct 11, 2007 22:23

Having one rates bill which includes a part for water does not mean that the Water service is less likely to be privatised. It just means they may do it in a slightly different way.

For example, they could just outsource the provision of water to a seperate company and pay them centrally. This company's charges to the state will just go up and up and rates bills go up accordingly.

This is not a victory, it is an attempt to ram through the charges so a campaign of resistance to the priovatisation of water services will be harder to fight

by s - wwpc Fri Oct 12, 2007 16:23

Executive preparing to impose additional water charges through rates
October 12th, 2007
The We Won’t Pay Campaign has replied to comments made by Minister for Regional Development Conor Murphy on radio today, warning that the Assembly Executive appear to be preparing the introduction of additional water charges through the rates.

Mr Murphy claimed that ‘difficult’ decisions will have to be made to raise finance needed to invest in the water service.

The recommendations contained in the Independent Water Review Panel report support itemising the domestic rates bills to record how much money is spent on water from rates. It says approxiametely on average every household pays £160 a year on water.

According to We Won’t Pay Campaign spokesperson Gary Mulcahy “It appears the Assembly Executive is forced to introduce water charges through the rates because they know it will be impossible to avoid mass non-payment if they introduce a seperate bill. Instead they seem to think people won’t notice if they instead introduce water charges through the back door, as an additional part of the rates. In order to do this they must postpone charges for a third year. If they do take this road, they will make significant increases in the water component of the rates, which could increase year on year thereafter.”

“The We Won’t Pay Campaign is concerned the politicians in the Executive may be about to stab the people in the back by announcing water charges in disguised form after claiming they opposed water charges during the elections. We will organise meetings to democratically discuss our response to the details of an announcement from the Executive and will also be examining potential ways of challenging any new charges, including organising non-payment of rates.”

by McG Fri Oct 12, 2007 16:39

But is this not just showing us where we already pay for water from as opposed to introducing new charges?

Is this not what we have always said - that we were already paying for water and that we shouldnt have to pay twice? What is the problem with this?

by Mark P - socialist party (personal capacity) Fri Oct 12, 2007 17:37

The problem McG, comes when you add the available information together.

Water is, it appears, going to be marked seperately on rates bills. By itself that doesn't mean much. But look at the wider context. The Water service has just been turned into a company, albeit still in public ownership at this point. The Minister, Conor Murphy, is still telling us that "difficult decisions" will have to be made on financing the water service. The Executive and the British government are still operating on the principle that new income, above the existing rate level, will be needed to raise that finance - hence all this guff about independent reports and the like.

So, the state are still intent on making people pay more for water. They are still intent on privatising the service. One approach which they may take is to simply up the rates. That would be of use to the Executive as while the content would be the same as seperate water tax bills, the form would be disguised. Particularly if they up the rate incrementally, year on year, rather than all at once. The effect would be to get water taxes in by stealth.

In addition non-payment of rates, as I understand it, can be treated as a criminal offence. This would give them a bigger stick to use against non-payers. Sinn Fein and the other Assembly parties are fully committed to getting the water tax in. The only issue for them to decide on is the form they take.

by McG Fri Oct 12, 2007 17:55

But thats a different issue altogether Mark. Thats about how much we pay for water, or indeed any other bill, elctricity etc not about introducing a new and double form of taxation. When I first read this I was led to belive that they were introducing a new Water Charge which doesnt seem to be the case at all.

by SP member Fri Oct 12, 2007 18:27

They are proposing to have water charges just in a different format. The review states that people are already paying on average £160 in their rates for water services. The review proposes that from 2009 that an additional £120 should be added to the rates bills for as an additional charge for water. This charge will then be increased as the Assembly Executive sees fit. This is water charges. It is an additional tax on top of what people are paying already and it must be fought.

by McG Fri Oct 12, 2007 18:39

No, thats an INCREASE in water charges not a new charge. Yes, it should be fought just as other increase in gas and electricity etc should be fought, but it is not a new charge.

We always claimed we were already paying for our water through rates which is why we opposed new and seperate water charges being brought in. This merely confirms it.