Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance) | Oireachtas source

It is a red herring to suggest that we do not care about rural dwellers and the money they pay into group water schemes. Our position is that people have a human right to water. That includes rural dwellers and people in group water schemes. They should not have to pay for water other than through central taxation. The infrastructure for rural areas should be provided through progressive central taxation.

It is also nonsense to suggest that, in arguing against water charges, we are not interested in vital investments in water infrastructure and conservation. Every time we debate this issue, the Minister of State, Deputy Coffey, speaks about the need to invest in water infrastructure. Can we short circuit that fake debate? We agree 100% on the need for investment. In fact, we agree 150% in comparison to what the Government is doing because we think Irish Water's investment programme of €1.2 billion is not sufficient. Our investment programme would be bigger because we think several billion euro needs to be invested.

That is why we are furious that the Government has wasted so much money on matters that are unrelated to fixing the water infrastructure. Had that money been invested in infrastructure, we would have rehabilitated it more quickly. Money was wasted on advertising. Every time we listen to an advertisement by Irish Water, it is money down the drain. Money is wasted on advertising agencies, consultants, billing systems we do not need and contractors. Every cent that is spent in these areas is a cent that is not spent on fixing leaky pipes. The money will continue to be wasted through profit taking by consultants and contractors. These are not insignificant amounts.

The administration cost of billing nearly 2 million people four times every year is a lot of money wasted and is unnecessary. It would be cheaper, more efficient and fairer to take the money out of central taxation, either through income tax, corporate tax, a financial transaction tax or other measures that do not involve regressive taxation hitting the least well off.

Deputy Paul Murphy gave four examples of how the Government could get more money than from Irish Water, on a more progressive and fairer basis. The Minister of State, however, pretended not to hear it. That is what is happening with Greece as well. The Government is on the same page as the bullies in the European Union. When the Greek Government went to the EU with detailed proposals about alternative ways to pay off their debts, they were rejected with a straight face.

I do not think he should do so, but Mr. Varoufakis said that they are determined to service their external debt. However, the troika does not like the proposals because it considers them to be unrealistic. Or the troika pretends not to hear them, just as the Minister of State pretended he did not hear Deputy Paul Murphy. Nonetheless, the Minister of State has heard alternative proposals from many Opposition Deputies for financing the necessary investment in our water infrastructure.

The issue is not whether we need massive investment in water infrastructure, it is how one pays for it and whether it is fair. In so far as one must pay for it, the method by which one garners that revenue must be efficient. On all counts, however, Irish Water fails, which begs the question as to why the Government wants it. We all know the answer to that question. It is about privatisation. The Minister of State knows it, and so do we and the public. I can guarantee the Minister of State that if he gets away with this, although I hope he will not, Irish Water will be privatised in less than ten years. He knows that is what will happen, just as Fine Gael, Fianna Fáil and Labour knew when bin charges were being introduced that the bin collection service would be privatised. Privately they all said it, but publicly they maintained that paying bin charges would stop privatisation. That was because they wanted to undermine the campaign of opposition against bin charges. In fact, however, it was the other way around. The Minister of State knew it then and knows it now, so he is just being dishonest with the people. Everybody knows that this is the stepping stone to privatisation, so why does the Minister of State not come clean about the real reasons for it?

It is difficult to know where to go from this. I feel we should keep this debate going just to annoy the Government.

See this speech in context