New reality is we must pay for local services, or lose them

The flapping of wings over many households in Meath may not indicate that a missing rare falcon has finally returned home after his odyssey in Donegal, but rather that the chickens are coming home to roost on the Household Charge. The charge was introduced last January through the Local Government (Household Charge) Act 2011 which set out a €100 charge to be levied on the owners of residential property. The legislation laid down that it was up to householders to register and pay up. In Meath, 60,000 residents were deemed liable for the charge and a total of 52 per cent have paid up. The figure for the number of people paid up may be out of date since the council sent out a further letter to non-payers in the last few weeks. The Local Government Management Agency, which collects the charge on behalf of the Department of the Environment, was due to issue an update on the collection by various local authorities around the country but pulled back at the last minute. There is no doubt that the charge has been unpopular and a vigorous campaign was organised against it. Part of that campaign focused on calls to refuse to pay the charge. The campaign was accompanied by a barrage of publicity and public meetings around the country and this has all now fizzled out. The 48 per cent of people in Meath who took the advice not to pay are now left with a bigger bill than was first envisaged when the charge came in. If they had not paid up by June last, they were liable for a further 10 per cent penalty. If they continue to refuse to pay in the six months up to next January, 20 per cent will be added to the €100 and, in the early months of next year, they could be facing a penalty of 30 per cent. In addition, late payment interest of one per cent per month will be applied to unpaid amounts. Looking into the future, both the €100 charge and any accumulated late payment fee will be a charge against the property for 12 years after the charge or late payment penalties concerned become due. It means that if a householder decides to sell his or her home, the charges and penalties will have to be paid up before a transfer or sale of the property can be completed. The effects of non-payment by sizeable sections of the population are now becoming clear. The Minister for the Environment, Phil Hogan, has decided that €2.6 million will be slashed from the €21 million provided to Meath County Council from the Local Government Fund. The minister has made it clear that the funds are being withheld because of the shortfall in the revenue from the charge. In Meath's case, it means a cut of about 12 per cent. The fallout is obvious - the 2012 budget set by the council last autumn will be scrapped, and there will be inevitable cuts to services when the new budget is worked out in the coming weeks. All of this does not present a pretty picture in a county which already has a low rate base. A nine per cent funding cut had already been announced at the end of last year and this latest 12 per cent cut is a further crippling blow. There is only one bit of advice I can give to hard-pressed householders who have withheld the charge - bite the bullet and pay up or your county and its services will suffer badly. The new reality for all of us is that if we want local services, we have to pay for them. Improved payment rates of the 'Meath 48%' could mean a resumption of payment of funds from central government - and that can only be good for the county. None of that can take away from the mess made by the minister in the introduction of this charge. To say that it was ham-fisted is understating the case. Does he sometimes imagine he is that well-known Trim man Arthur Wesley (or Wellesley as he became known in another incarnation) who believed in "strong, authoritative government" and who eventually became so unpopular that he was forced to erect iron shutters on the windows of his London home to prevent them being smashed by angry crowds, earning him the title 'Iron Duke'. We can only hope that he adopts a more persuasive tone when it comes to the introduction of an equitable property charge.