Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, Anti-Austerity Alliance) | Oireachtas source

I will speak to amendments Nos. 8 and 9. It is very unfortunate these are the only amendments we are able to debate and that such a restrictive interpretation has been put on Standing Orders. Amendments Nos. 8 and 9, which are linked, propose that the membership of the so-called expert commission, so-called neutral commission, would be subject to a vote in the House. This is absolutely and perfectly reasonable. Why does the Government not want to have a vote on it in the House? I presume the Minister will speak to the amendment so let us see. I think it is precisely because the purpose of the exercise was explained by Joe O'Toole, that people voted a certain way and Leinster House is not prepared to grasp that particular nettle, so we have to find a solution that will have enough sugar on it to make the medicine go down easily. The purpose is a political exercise to try to come back and reimpose the question of water charges as well as maintaining Irish Water.

The problem for Joe O'Toole, of course, was that he gave the game away. That was the problem and why he had to go. Ironically, I am sure the Minister has seen the interview Joe O'Toole gave The Irish Timeson Saturday. He gave the game away again, as he was asked whether the Minister for housing, planning and local government, Deputy Simon Coveney, knew of his views in advance. Joe O'Toole said he told him what they were and that the Minister showed great confidence in him. I would say the Minister did. Did he tell the Minister that his view was that the purpose of the commission was a political exercise to put sugar on it to make sure the medicine goes down easily? The game was given away yet again. The commission is rigged in my opinion. It has been set up to deliver a certain outcome, which is to recommend a continuation of domestic water charges. It is a complete sham.

Let us look at the membership of the committee. Obviously, we have seen that Joe O'Toole has been replaced by Kevin Duffy. So what? The Minister could replace him with anyone in the world. He could replace him with Kofi Annan and it would not change the essence of it.

See this speech in context