Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, Anti-Austerity Alliance) | Oireachtas source

It sounds like we are at the European Court of Justice already. It is nothing personal when I say I do not believe the European Commission is respecting the political process here. It is doing the very opposite. I refer to the letters sent to the expert commission and the Minister, Deputy Simon Coveney. I suggest Mr. Ciobanu-Dordea's presentation was designed to state we did not have political choices. The message is that the political choice not to have water charge made by the people through boycott and protest and in last year's general election is not legitimate and cannot be upheld without fines.

I fundamentally disagree with that.

I will go through questions one by one to try to make it more concise and in order that we do not lose them. First, I return to the question of inconsistency. I think two different questions were mixed up a bit in the witness's response. Let us forget about what the Irish Government is doing in saying whether it has water charges or not. That does not matter. Let us forget about what we define as established practice, etc. The difference between the answers in 2010 and 2016 is very substantial. It does not relate to anything that the Irish Government is doing. It relates to a different interpretation of the European Commission on article 9(4) of the water framework directive. I seek clarity on why this changed and an admission that it did change.

The answer to Deputy Alan Kelly in 2010 was as follows: "Article 9(4) provides the possibility for Member States not to apply the provisions of Article 9(1) to a given water-use activity, where this is an established practice at the time of adoption of the directive". That answer defines that article 9(4) kicks in "where this is an established practice at the time of adoption of the directive". In other words, that was in 2003. The answer given in 2016 to Marian Harkin, MEP, effectively said that the current practice is to have water charges. We can get into a debate separately about that. In 2010, it clearly said "at the time of adoption of the directive". In 2016, it effectively said at the current time. Why has that changed?