Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, Socialist Party) | Oireachtas source

Certainly. The Minister, Deputy Kelly, is at the front of that campaign of the Labour Party. The only problem the Government side has is that what is being said is not true. Deputy O'Donovan spoke of repeated attacks by Deputy Ruth Coppinger and me on farmers and the rural community. I challenge Deputy O'Donovan, if he is in his office watching the debate, to return to the Chamber and back up his statement with references to the transcript of the Dáil, media reports or any forum in which we have attacked any people who do not live in major cities. It is a nonsense. It has never been the case. Admittedly, we attack the financial system and the troika. At times, we criticise harshly big businesses and big corporations. At times, perhaps, we criticise big farmers but we do not make a point criticising or condemning those who do not live in cities. By contrast, we consider ourselves their allies.

In my constituency, Dublin South-West, there is a not insignificant number of people who are not connected to the mains and who have wells or are part of a group water scheme. I have met many of them who say they support the campaign against water charges. They are opposed to the cut in the subvention to the group water schemes that has gone hand in hand with the water charges. They are opposed to the turning of water into a commodity and to the process of privatising the water system. They favour having free, quality public water supplied to all. That is our position.

The Government has admitted in the course of this debate that everyone has paid for water through motor taxation and other means. We are not saying those people who are not connected to a public water system should have to pay twice while those who are connected should pay only once, through motor tax. We are saying no one should pay. Through a mechanism of sufficient grants and infrastructural investment in and expansion of the public water system, no one should have to pay twice, regardless of where he or she lives. It is without basis for the Government side, including Deputy O'Donovan, to present this as a matter of an urban-rural divide. In fact, we have a classic case of divide and rule. There is an attempt to set ordinary people against one another based on where they live, just as the divide-and-rule principle has operated in the past through differentiating between people based on whether they worked in the public or private sector.

Let me refer to some of the points the Minister made. I welcome his contribution and presence because he may be able to shed light on some of the issues for us. He referred to the fact that this legislation effectively has nothing to do with Irish Water and that the money is a sum being transferred from the local government fund to the Exchequer. That is fine and we understand that but we are clearly of the belief that this is step one of a two-step process. Step one involves the transfer from the local government fund to the Exchequer, and step two involves a transfer from the Exchequer to Irish Water. Does the second step simply not exist? Will there be no transfer from the Exchequer to Irish Water? Will the transfer from the Exchequer to Irish Water, presuming there is one, be of the same magnitude as the one from the local government fund to the Exchequer? Is it, therefore, the case that there is effectively one transaction involving a transfer from the local government fund to Irish Water, but with the middleman, the Exchequer, in between?

In my previous contribution, I raised a number of points on the amendments Deputy Ruth Coppinger, Deputy Higgins and I have tabled, namely, the amendments to amendment No. 20. None of these points has been dealt with or referred to in any way, never mind answered, by the Minister of State. Therefore, I hope the Minister, Deputy Alan Kelly, will be able to do so.

Our first amendment to amendment No. 20 reads: "In the third line of paragraph (a), proposed to be inserted by section 42(a), to delete “or more than one,”." The Government's proposed paragraph (a) reads: "Subject to paragraphs (b) and (c), the Minister may, on or before 31 December 2015, 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." Our amendment would delete "or more than one" so only one transfer could be made. Deputy Ó Cuív asked about the point to having one sum transferred. It would be in the interests of transparency and clarity as everyone would know how much is involved on the completion of the transfer. Why does the Government not accept that amendment?

Our second amendment, which we believe is more important, is more to the point. Again, the Government has not given any reason it will not accept it. It is a very simple, democratic addition to the relevant paragraph. It reads: "In the fourth line of paragraph (a), proposed to be inserted by section 42(a), after “Finance” to insert “and approved by both Houses of the Oireachtas"." That would change “payment from the Fund in the amount requested by the Minister for Finance” to “payment from the Fund in the amount requested by the Minister for Finance and approved by both Houses of the Oireachtas.” That is very simply a democratic check on the Minister for Finance. If we need any evidence that the democratic check is necessary, we need only note how Committee Stage has been avoided and the way in which a new water charges Bill has been rammed straight through via another Bill on completely unrelated matters. We clearly need a check on the Minister for Finance. The amendment makes a very simple, democratic demand, namely, that the Houses of the Oireachtas should have to approve any transfer from the local government fund to the Exchequer. It is entirely reasonable and democratic for us to ask that this demand be inserted in the Bill.

Of course, with the respect of the Government for the European establishment it regards as its ally, democracy is fairly low down the priority list. One need only look at the attempted regime change that is currently taking place in Greece, with Ms Angela Merkel at the head but with the Taoiseach, Deputy Enda Kenny, happy to play along.

Let me refer to our third amendment and clarify a point Deputy Ó Cuív raised earlier. The amendment reads: "In the second line of paragraph (c), proposed to be inserted by section 42(b), to delete “€540 million” and substitute "€1"." It is not to substitute €1 million but €1 for €540 million. The reason is that the Government has not given any justification for the amount of money being transferred. We believe it is being transferred to feed the beast that is Irish Water. We oppose the section and the Bill as a whole because of what will be in it. As a step in the right direction, we propose to reduce the amount of money from €540 million to €1. That would limit the transfer amount to an amount that is much more reasonable.

The Government side has not addressed the amendments and has not outlined why they should not be accepted. In particular, I press home the basic democratic argument concerning the need for the transfer to be approved by both Houses of the Oireachtas as opposed to just giving a blank cheque of a little more than €500 million to the Minister for Finance.

See this speech in context