Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

We could then come in next week or the week after and do a standard report at which stage the Minister of State would have listened to the debate, which is the idea behind the procedures in this House, and could suggest amendments. Yesterday evening I asked the Minister of State whether I am correct in understanding that what this amendment seeks to do is give the Government the power to transfer up to €540 million from the local government fund to the Exchequer this year, which money I understand in practice would then be sent to Irish Water in lieuof the money which used to go directly to the local authorities for water and sewage. When the Minister of State transfers the amount in question will there be a euro for euro transfer of money from the Exchequer, that is, his Department's Vote, to Irish Water? Is that what is intended?

The second matter which is germane here is that it is very unusual for legislation, where a situation is to be ongoing, not to provide for it into the future. In other words, if the Government thinks there will be further transfers from the local government fund to the Exchequer next year and in subsequent years, it is unusual that the Bill would not provide for it. It would mean the Government will have to come back in again next year with primary legislation and go through this whole process all over again. That is highly unusual.

We need clear answers so that we can make our mind up on the amendment. Is it unforeseen that there will be further transfers from the local government fund next year to the Exchequer? What valid reason in legislative process has the Government given for not providing for it in the legislation? For example, why does the section not read, "Subject to paragraphs (b) and (c), the Minister may, on or before 31 December 2015 [and in subsequent years], pursuant to a request from the Minister for Finance, make one, or more than one, payment from the Fund in the amount requested by the Minister for Finance." I have no problem with more than one payment because whatever sum one arrives at, it does not matter if it is ten payments or two payments, it is the same sum of money. The amendment goes on to say that the sum cannot be more than €540 million. Can the Minister of State explain why it does not provide for a payment in 2015 and on an annual basis in subsequent years?

I do not understand and would not support Deputy Murphy's first amendment to this Government amendment. I do not understand his objection to payments in instalments. The total sum will be the same amount of money. His amendment is unnecessarily constraining. I presume the reason for it, and the Minister of State might clarify the issue, relates to allowing for the possibility of transferring, say, €300 million but deciding later in the year that Uisce Éireann needed more money and then transferring a further sum.

The Government might decide that its capital programme had gone faster than anticipated and it could spend money usefully in upgrading the pipes, for example. We would all welcome that. I have no problem in the ability to transfer money as the Government needs it. That makes sense, and if I was in the Minister's shoes, I would like that facility. However, this is a contentious issue and given the structure by which the Government is doing it, I must support amendment No 2. It provides that as the Government transfers money, it would have to come back to the Houses of the Oireachtas. That makes a good deal of sense and I call on the Minister of State to accept it. I believe it would allay suspicion. The more we are open and transparent in respect of water, the better. The more the fanciful rumours going around can be allayed, the better. People who are secretive about their business always encourage paranoia, even when it is unfounded.

Amendment No. 3 is tabled by the two Deputies Murphy. We could substitute €1 million for €540 million but in the greater scheme of things €1 million would not do much. It is such a small proportion of what the Government seems to require. If that is what the Government believes, it would be far better to have tabled an amendment to delete the section and simply oppose the section in total. Effectively €1 million is not worth a candle here. I cannot agree with it because if the Government did not give money - money was always given from the local government fund to Uisce Éireann - the organisation would be rather short of funds. Basically, what the Government is doing, although it is going around the mountain to do it, amounts to providing money from the local government fund for the provision of water and sewerage services in the country. Can the Minister of State confirm that de facto this is what the Government is doing, albeit in a two-step process? Can the Minister of State confirm the Government will have to come back with new legislation if it wishes to transfer money next year? Does the Government expect to seek such a transfer next year and in subsequent years? Will the Minister of State explain why the legislation does not provide for that? Will the Minister of State confirm whether the money going from the local government fund to the Exchequer will be passed on, euro for euro, from the Exchequer or the Department's Vote to Uisce Éireann or will it be held in the central coffers of the Department and used for other purposes? I hope I get clear answers.

Again, I apologise for not being in the House at the beginning of the debate. I imagine the Minister of State understands that even Fianna Fáil people cannot be in two places at the one time.

See this speech in context