Colm Brophy (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Many of the core issues I wanted to raise have been addressed. However, I would like clarification on some points. Returning to the Scottish Water situation and a comment made earlier, which seemed to me to be enlightening in light of the Scottish Water's contribution to the committee, Scottish Water has the second most expensive water supply in Europe. It was indicated that there was an element of compliance in what Scottish Water was doing because cost recovery is built into its charge. It would appear to me, therefore, that in regard to a non-metered system to be in compliance with the directive a cost recovery component is essential. This is achieved by Scottish Water and, therefore, Scotland, by way of high charges for the supply of water to everybody. In other words, it is required to actively discriminate against people who could have lower water bills to ensure that cost recovery is built in to its charge. Perhaps the witnesses would confirm if my understanding of that is correct.

On established practice, which I appreciate has been dealt with in some detail already, my understanding is that if something is established practice it is possible to have a derogation on that basis, unless the State ends that practice. I am speaking about a sovereign state introducing legislation through its Parliament to change a practice. It was previously an established practice in this country not to pay equal wages to men and women but we ended that practice by way of legislation. Once a state has introduced legislation to change something it ceases to be established practice. We move on and effectively the derogation lapses. The references to proposals and so on were grossly misleading. We legislated to introduce charges and we levied them. The majority of people paid them. I presume, regardless of what percentage of people paid and so on, when a sovereign state, through its Parliament, ends an established practice then effectively the derogation lapses. That is my understanding of why established practice would not be possible in this context. The witnesses may put forward a technical legal argument in that regard but as I understand it that is why established practice has lapsed in this instance. I would also like the witnesses to respond on whether my view in this regard is correct.

I appreciate that any decision which initiates legal action or fines or charges against the Irish State will be, at the end of the day, a collective decision for the Commission. However, the witnesses, as people who have held senior positions within the Commission structure for many years, must have some indication or idea of the level of fines Ireland could expect to have levied on it if found to be in breach of the directive. In my estimation the level of fine we could expect to have levied on us would be in the millions and there would be a daily recurring fine that would be very substantial as well. I appreciate that this will be adjudicated eventually by the European Court of Justice, with the Commission and the Irish State being the protagonists. In other instances, I have been no friend of how the Commission does its business. However, I believe that the opinion of witnesses, as Commission representatives, is valuable in this instance because it is not just another opinion but a real guide for us of the implications of what the Irish State could be facing. I would welcome if the witnesses could give us some type of indication as to the real costs might be in terms if Ireland were to fall foul of the directive.