Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, Anti-Austerity Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the delegates for their presentations. I will address my questions to Ms Graham. In her comments on proving compliance with a directive she said the burden of proof was on the member state concerned. That seems to be completely inaccurate. In the European Court of Justice v. Greece, C 600/12, the court reiterated that, according to case law on the burden of proof in infringement proceedings under Article 258 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, it was for the European Commission to establish an alleged breach. Will Ms Graham correct her remarks and tell us from where she obtained the information that the reverse was the case, as according to the European Court of Justice, it is the court that decides, not the Commission, on whether there has been a breach.

My second question relates to the financing costs. According to the document, they will balloon over time, with the result that by 2021, €73 million will have been spent, including interest on loans. According to Ervia, as indicated last week, it is charged a higher rate of interest than would be the case if the State had borrowed directly. By 2021, €1 in every €10 spent by Irish Water will be spent in meeting financing costs. If we were to return to the water billing model, over €1 in every €4 raised by Irish Water in water charges would be spent in meeting financing costs. When one considers that the off balance sheet model is no more, at least in the medium term, why borrow at rates higher than those at which the State can borrow directly? There seems to be no benefit, only additional costs. Linked with this, the loans are probably secured on the assets of Irish Water. I presume if the loans were not repaid, the security could be called in. That was the model of privatisation which led to disaster in Detroit where there was an attempt to provide for off balance sheet funding of services, with the result that $1 in every $2 raised by Detroit Water went directly to pay the bondholders.

My third question relates to group water schemes. It is correct to say that in February 2015 the group water scheme subsidy was cut from the maximum figure of €140 to €95 per house and that it was restored following the suspension of water charges. Therefore, instead of there being a division between Irish Water and group water schemes, it is fair to say that with the forced suspension of water charges those involved in group water schemes also benefited and there is no division between the two groups.

I have a question on EUROSTAT for Mr. McCarthy. I have the report from EUROSTAT and also a description of the European system of accounts. One of the elements is that sellers act to maximise their profits in the long term to qualify for off balance sheet accounting. A particular criticism was made about the lack of economically significant prices. Is it fair to say that according to EUROSTAT, in order to qualify for off balance sheet accounting, in reality it means an increase in water charges?