Sir. As someone who paid the charge and did not support the campaign against it, I am nevertheless amazed at the support for Mary Harney's position. The charge was inequitable unrelated either to the cost of the service, or the ability to pay. It was recognised as a form of double taxation when income tax relief was granted, but most of us got back only quarter of what we paid.
It should not be brought back. The enormous cost of installing and servicing meters would be grossly wasteful. And it would require very difficult means testing, as presumably we would not want to deprive those who could not pay of such a basic element. Those who use a lot, e.g. large families, are often least able to pay.
The argument on waste is spurious. In Britain, where they have achieved the ultimate "privatisation" of water supply, one hears that waste has never been so great. The providers are so concerned to maximise profits that they cannot afford repairs!
I recognise that almost anything can happen. How many of my generation could have visualised paying 17 and six for a bottle of water? However, on an island with, probably the highest rainfall in Europe, can, we not afford to pro vide our citizens with water out of general taxation? - Yours, etc.,
Gaybrook Lawns,
Malahide,
Co Dublin.