Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent) | Oireachtas source

The Minister of State referred to the free allowance being determined by the regulator, which means we are handing over responsibility to the regulator. There is an element of Teflon about that about which I am more than uneasy. The Minister of State also referred to the annual report being laid before the Dáil. We hear this all the time. While the policing report was laid before the Dáil on budget day, it was not debated, which is a deficient method of oversight. We must put in place a mechanism which ensures such reports are debated in detail.

I am concerned that poverty proofing of this legislation has not yet been completed. That is a serious issue.

I asked the Minister of State about several points, including the €300 million. Will this continue to be invested? The Minister of State said it was a subsidy. With regard to the preferred method of building new treatment plans and the approach the new company will take, will it take its lead from the Department? Dr. Eoin Reeves gave the joint Oireachtas committee very useful information stating local authorities had conducted value for money tests and concluded in favour of traditional procurement. However, the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government has not granted project approval because design, build and operate is its preferred method of procurement, even when a value for money report shows one can save money by using the traditional route. We need to know what the approach will be.

With regard to consumer protection, the service must be fit for purpose, and there must be redress for people whereby they can complain or an element of consumer protection. Where is this? Will it be in the next piece of legislation? It must be somewhere.

See this speech in context