Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I worry a little when someone tells me what I am doing is "interesting". I thank Senator Sean D. Barrett for his comments, but I cannot deal with all of the points he made now. I will not allow him to drag me into a discussion on the size and scale of the Taoiseach's office. I know he is trying to lead me into difficulty, but I will resist it. I agree with him that there should be a public debate on the costing of any issue. Unfortunately, however, such a debate is often characterised on a personal basis. I commented last weekend that engaging in the normal business of politics should not involve personal considerations. Even party considerations are often juxtaposed into the normal workings of proper scoping evaluation and so on.

The Senator referred to the property issue. I agree strongly with him that we do not want to go back to a boom property market. We have been thinking off-piste about how to deal with this and I have had discussions with the Minister for Finance on the issue. The Senator makes a very valid point on lobbying and the issue of access to power, which has bedevilled all administrations, not just in Ireland but all over the world, and the fact that we need to bring transparency and openness to it. Lobbying is good, whether by farmers, the trade union movement, employers, local community groups and so on. People are entitled to lobby, as long as everyone knows who is lobbying whom and what they are saying. Then, if there is a change in policy, we will know whose lobbying had an impact. That is what we need in that context.

The Senator referred to the pyrite issue and the Canadian example, but as he knows, the original intention of the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government was to levy the quarrying industry. However, he ran into difficulties in that regard and found that it was not possible to do so. That is the long and short of it. We do not have the same flexibility as they do in Canada because of European considerations and so forth. It was important to provide a sum of money - €10 million was the initial sum - to deal with the pyrite problem because it was ongoing. The people affected by it cannot get insurance; their houses are cracked and falling down; and the problem needs to be addressed.

The Senator mentioned Irish Water and the fact that we had to set a price for water. However, we also have to know the cost of water because often we do not value the inputs and real cost of anything. We need to set a price that is affordable, while also sustaining the new entity that will be Irish Water. Despite many of the negative things said about Irish Water - often it is high level sound bites that determine people's views - anyone who listened to the details of the five hour presentation to the committee by the CEO of Irish Water would have a different perspective of the competence, ability, scale, scope and importance of Irish Water into the future. It will be regarded in years to come as of equal importance to the ESB or any other of our flagship State enterprises.

I thank committee members for their input. The reform side of my work is more than interesting; it is critical.