I note the absence again of the Labour Party.

Or than Deputy Martin is in Fianna Fáil.

I do not know whether the Labour Party has taken up an abstentionist policy on Leaders' Questions, or perhaps its members are embarrassed. The sorry saga of the Taoiseach's efforts to impose an additional water tax on households and his establishment of the now totally discredited Irish Water is a metaphor for how this Government functions, or indeed does not function. There was no need to impose an additional water charge in the first instance, but the Government did so. There was no need to pay €85 million of taxpayers' money to consultants but the Government did that as well.

The Government could have listened to suggestions from these benches, but instead it forced through the Water Services Bill. Back then, the Government threatened to reduce household supplies to a trickle. Popular anger grew and the protests got bigger, so the Government did a partial U-turn. It also failed with that. In the meantime, in the background the Siteserv scandal was being covered up by the Government and a subsidiary of Siteserv was given a lucrative contract for installing water meters across the State. All of this happened on the Taoiseach's watch.

Now we learn from the media that the Government is discussing draconian and unprecedented new powers to deduct water charges from citizens' wages, pensions and social welfare payments. Is it not time to go back to the drawing board? Will the Taoiseach now, belatedly, scrap the water charges?

I have replied to the Deputy on this question on a number of occasions. The Government does not intend to drop the establishment of Irish Water, with its capacity to borrow for investment to fix the many problems that have been associated with the water supply and wastewater throughout the country over a long period. The Government has a requirement. I recall the Deputy stating in public that he intended, as a legislator and a citizen, to pay his water charges. He was very straightforward about that. However, for whatever reason, he then changed his mind and said he would not pay it.

It is about time the country confronted a situation that has been inadequate for many years. We must deal with it. There is a lack of water of sufficient quality in many places and a lack of investment to deal with wastewater. There is clearly a difference between those who can pay but say they will not pay, and those who cannot pay. The Government clearly recognises that. We cannot have a situation in which huge numbers of citizens understand that they must make a contribution for the water supply, which is now very moderate at €1.15 or €3 per week, for which they register and pay and for which they will be in receipt of support from the Department of Social Protection, while others who receive the same water supply say they will not pay when they clearly can. There will be a compliance regime to deal with that. It is grossly unfair to expect one neighbour to pay while the other neighbour takes the view that he or she should not pay. Again, I distinguish between those who can pay but will not and those who cannot pay. The compliance regime will be in place to deal with that, so everybody can invest and contribute to having a country that has high-quality water supplies and high-grade capability to deal with wastewater, which is affecting our reputation in many places.

The Taoiseach's compliance regime, as he christens it, will penalise ordinary hard-working families, pensioners and vulnerable citizens, who have already borne the brunt of the Government's austerity policies. The latest plan, concocted by a Labour Party Minister who is greatly concerned about his legacy, also sets a very dangerous precedent. If a company such as Irish Water can take money from people's private bank accounts or pensions, where will this end? Will this legislation apply to Bord Gáis, the ESB and Eircom? What will stop a private company such as a car dealership from seeking an attachment order?

This latest contortion in the long-running efforts to impose water charges is a direct contrast with the Government's compliant and subservient attitude to the banks, which refuse point blank to deal fairly with families in mortgage distress. The Taoiseach refuses to introduce legislation to oblige them to do so.

A question, please.

He has no problem with legislating for a compliance regime for pensioners, social welfare recipients or workers, but not for the banks. He is prepared to introduce this unprecedented, pocket-picking legislation against those citizens, but he refuses to legislate to protect citizens against the banks or to safeguard taxpayers' money. Will the Taoiseach explain that? Tá mé críochnaithe anois. Will the Taoiseach explain the two sets of values? Is Fine Gael the bankers' party? Is this Government the bankers' party? Will the Taoiseach explain why there is one set of values for dealing with ordinary citizens, for which he is prepared to legislate in the way he has put forward, although he refuses to do that in respect of the veto he has given to, and copperfastened for, the banks?

As I told Deputy Martin, the Government will introduce a number of further options next week to deal with banks and distressed mortgage holders, where clearly there has been a problem for some time. The Government's priority is to ensure that the vast majority of people hold onto their homes and have the opportunity to remain in their homes by following a number of options, which will be presented next week.

On the Deputy's question regarding vulnerable citizens, one of the first actions of this Government was to reverse the decrease in the minimum wage which was introduced by the previous Administration. We have exempted 420,000 people from USC payments entirely-----

Stick with the topic.

-----and we will increase that to 500,000 this year, and we have reduced the USC requirement at the lower levels. Also, with regard to reducing the tax burden, the Government has started to provide that whatever flexibility people have won will go to the most vulnerable categories of citizen.

The difference between water and essential services such as gas, electricity and telecommunications is that the latter can be cut off, but the Government has legislated to provide that the water supply cannot and will not be cut off. Every citizen will get a water supply. There is a requirement to pay for it, however, as well as for the investment to create it and maintain it and the investment necessary for future services. That is the reason the Government listened carefully to people and that the rates are now €3 or €1.15 per week. The Government understands that there are vulnerable people who cannot pay-----

They do not have it. That is what being vulnerable means. They do not have €3 or €1.

-----but there are many people who say they will not pay when they can pay. That is the difference, and there will be a compliance regime to ensure that everybody is compliant.

Empty threats.

The legislation provides that the water cannot be cut off. It is an essential and important service for life, but clearly a contribution is necessary.

So the Taoiseach picks their pockets.

Where it can be paid, it will be paid.