Mr. Conleth Bradley:

I will be brief. I accept Mr. Ciobanu-Dordea's emphasis on the margin of appreciation given, but it has to be the margin of appreciation given to the member state. It cannot be the Commission's, as it cannot have it every way. There is either a margin of appreciation or there is not. I said the German case involved hydroelectric issues. The points of principle established by the European Court of Justice in that case are important. If anybody wants to read them, they are set out in paragraphs 47 and 51 of the judgment. These important points of principle apply to the discussion we are having. I will summarise them. Article 9 does not state there is an absolute requirement to bring in charges. Article 9 which is about river basin management has to be read in the context of Articles 4, 5 and 11. The committee can look at this later because I do not propose to go into the details of it now. When the European Court of Justice considers these matters, it looks at them from an holistic perspective. Mr. Ciobanu-Dordea is absolutely correct when he says this is about quality rather than quantity. When we consider Article 9.4 of the directive which refers to "established practices", we must look at how Ireland dealt with water services from 1962 to 2016. I will not go back to the Public Health (Ireland) Act 1878. Everybody is looking at key dates. When the directive was in force, charging was done by way of general taxation as an established practice. Everyone who has worked in a local authority will know what went on between the elected members and the executive in the case of service charges.