The Minister lied to Deputy Barry Cowen last November. There was an untruth, a porky pie, a lie or whatever way the Leader wants to put it. The reality was the Minister was asked how much the establishment of Irish Water would cost. He answered - you can check the record, a Chathaoirligh - €10 million, although he personally, with his Cabinet colleagues, had sanctioned €180 million three months beforehand.

The Senator is way over time.

We had a whole week off last week. That was not our doing on this side of the House. There are points the people are telling us on the doorsteps that they want made. One of these points is how much water is going to cost.

The Senator had three minutes and they are well up.

Last evening the Minister claimed water charges would cost up to €450 for a family each year. Others are saying €240.

The Senator is way over time.

Irish Water admitted this morning that it did not even know what the basic price per litre would be.

Please, Senator.

Will the Minister and the Government be quite clear on what people will be expected to pay?

The Senator is way over time.

The people want to know the truth, not lies, falsehoods, porky pies or fantasy as put forward by Government election candidates. They want to know the lies last November of the Minister, Deputy Phil Hogan-----

I ask the Senator to resume his seat.

They want to know today the facts of what has to be paid.

The Senator is in fine form.

I am afraid I cannot match that melodramatic performance.

Practice makes perfect.

The Senator has spoken already. He should respect the rules of the House.

I hope my language will be a little more respectful of the Chair and the House.

I welcome the Government’s decision yesterday on water charges. We have seen a fair deal on them and the recognition that this is a conservation measure. The principles agreed at the Cabinet will encourage sensible use of this important natural resource. It is welcome that the Labour Party position that there should be no standing charge was adhered to and achieved because that would have militated against the conservation aspects of the charge. It is welcome that water for children will be free, that there will be a cap on charges for people with particular medical needs and that vulnerable groups such as pensioners, people with disabilities and carers will get an allowance through the household benefits package. It is also welcome that there will be a hardship fund, a free allowance and an accelerated metering programme. As the programme develops, we will see a much more efficient and effective use of our water resources, a much better delivery of water services and much less waste. We must be conscious that through the boom time, we allowed a fragmented system to evolve where water services were delivered through 34 local authorities, thousands of people are still on boil-water notices or restrictions and there were significant supply shortages in the Dublin area during the Christmas holidays.

I welcome the debate on the Labour Party’s Private Members’ motion on personal assistance services for people with disabilities this evening. We drafted the motion with the assistance of the Centre for Independent Living, members of which will be present in the Visitors Gallery for the duration of the debate which will be taken by the Minister of State, Deputy Kathleen Lynch. Many Members will have received communications from people with disabilities or their families who want to see this motion pass. I believe it has cross-party support, which I welcome.

At the weekend the European Ombudsman, Emily O’Reilly, spoke coherently and persuasively at the Burren Law School, a school in which I am involved as one of the directors this year, about the need to establish an office of guardian of the public interest to ensure practices such as extraordinary rendition are not allowed. While it may seem a technical point, will the Leader organise a debate on this matter as it could develop into a very important safeguard of the public interest? An office such as this would be a different function to that of the Attorney General. We would see ombudsman offices taking on part of this function - hence Emily O’Reilly’s interest. It would be worth exploring this specific point of having an office of the guardian of the public interest.