Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 9 Dec 2014

Vol. 861 No. 1

Water Services Bill 2014: Committee Stage

SECTION 1

Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government (Deputy Alan Kelly)

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 3, between lines 25 and 26, to insert the following:

""customer", "local authority", "occupier", "premises" and "property" have the meanings assigned to each of them, respectively, in section 2 of the No. 2 Act of 2013;".

This is a technical amendment which provides that the definitions of terms used in the Bill are the same as those used in the Water Services (No. 2) Act 2013. "Customer" is defined as the occupier of the premises in respect of which the water services are provided; "local authority" means a city or county council; and "occupier" means the person for the time being entitled to the occupation of a premises. The Water Services Act 2007 defined "premises" to include any building, vessel, vehicle, structure or land, whether or not there are structures on the land and whether or not the land is covered by water, and any plant or related accessories on or under such land, together with any put buildings and curtilage. The 2013 Act confirmed that "premises" also includes part of a premises. The definition of "property" includes land, equipment, pipes, sewers, structures, waterworks and wastewater works, as well as money, stocks, shares and securities, but does not include storm water sewers.

Deputy Fergus O'Dowd

I have no problem with this provision, but will the Minister indicate why it was necessary to include these definitions?

Deputy Joe Higgins

This amendment is part of the general noxious legislation the Minister is pushing through tonight. On that basis alone, it should be opposed.

Deputy Alan Kelly

To clarify, this amendment is purely to address a drafting issue.

Amendment put and declared carried.

Section 1, as amended, agreed to.

SECTION 2

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Amendment No. 2, in the name of Deputy Brian Stanley, and amendment No. 3, in the name of Deputy Stephen Donnelly, are out of order.

Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 not moved.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Amendments Nos. 4, 5, 7 and 8 are related and may be discussed together.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 4, line 9, after "Resolution" to insert "of not fewer than two thirds of the Members".

The way in which the original Bill was drafted left it open to the Minister to cause the sale of Irish Water. There was cause for further concern in the data protection statements that were included on the Irish Water website. The first of these, for example, referred to the sale not only of Irish Water but of the PPS numbers and personal information of its customers. Of course, the Government kept on assuring us this could not possibly happen.

As a result of the most recent changes, a section containing a number of safeguards and designed to prevent a sale or to reduce the prospect of such a sale was included in the Bill. The greatest safeguard of all would be if Irish Water did not exist. The billing system being put in place is expensive and Irish Water is a very expensive quango. While I accept that there is a need to invest in water services, the last thing we need to do is put money into a massive quango. When Mr. John Tierney of Irish Water appeared before the Joint Committee on Environment, Culture and the Gaeltacht, it emerged that it is estimated that the assets being transferred to the company - the intention was to work this matter through with each local authority - are valued at €11 billion. In recent days it has become clear that the relevant liabilities will not transfer in their entirety, which means that Irish Water is a much more attractive proposition in the context of its being sold.

The intention of the amendment in my name is to include some further safeguards in the legislation. The amendments under discussion have obviously been grouped together because of the variety of different ways of preventing any sale. My amendment suggests that a two thirds majority of each House would be required to allow shares to be disposed of. I would prefer it if we were not in the position of seeking ways to amend the legislation. Irish Water has become a major problem in its own right and the current approach must be abandoned.

Deputy Denis Naughten

I wish to speak to amendment No. 5 in my name. In that context, I will take up from where Deputy Catherine Murphy left off. This legislation is flawed and contains a number of major holes. The Government is rushing the process relating to the Bill, which will be put through the House by the end of the week. We are revisiting this matter because 12 months ago Deputies Timmins, McNamara and I were not listened to when we raised specific concerns with the then Áire Stáit, Deputy O'Dowd.

Deputy Joe Higgins

Leading the charge.

Deputy Denis Naughten

I am of the view that we will also be obliged to revisit it at some point in the future.

Section 2 of the Bill comprises almost a full page of text and relates to a plebiscite on the ownership of Irish Water. What is proposed in it is nothing more than a three-card trick. On 19 November last, the Minister, Deputy Kelly, informed the House that "The Government believes that public ownership of water services is the will of the Irish people and I propose to legislate to ensure that, if any future Government sought to change this position, it would be required to put this matter before the people in a plebiscite". That is not what the legislation before the House seeks to do. If the Bill is passed by both Dáil and Seanad Éireann by a majority of one in each case, the relevant proposal may be submitted by plebiscite to the decision of the people.

Deputy Joe Higgins

It may be. The Deputy is absolutely right.

Deputy Denis Naughten

It is not the case that the matter shall be put to the people by plebiscite. Any Government, including that currently in office, with a majority of one in each House will actually be in a position to dispose of the assets of Irish Water without referring the matter to anyone else. There is absolutely no security whatsoever provided within the legislation on this matter. I tabled a very simple amendment which would have led to the inclusion in the Bill of the promise the Minister made on 19 November to the effect that the matter should be put by plebiscite to the people. However, that amendment was ruled out of order on the basis that giving the people of this country their say with regard to the disposal of this particular asset would involve a potential cost on the Exchequer. The legislation before the House is not worth the paper on which it is written. The Minister is serious in terms of the commitment he gave on 19 November but what he said on that date is not reflected in the legislation.

Those of us who were involved in passing the legislation which facilitated the sale of the assets of Eircom are of the view that we made a genuine mistake. When we debated legislation relating to Aer Lingus a number of years ago, the then Minister, the late Seamus Brennan, gave a commitment that a formal motion would have to be approved by a majority of either House before any shareholding in the company could be disposed of. More recently, the assets of Bord Gáis were not contemplated in the legislation relating to that company's disposal. There is genuine concern regarding the assets of Irish Water because these are believed to be of such intrinsic value. As the Minister is aware, these assets are being used as a mechanism to leverage equity. The fear is that they may be forcibly sold at some future date.

As a result of the fact that I cannot table an amendment to the effect that the sale of those assets should be put to the people by plebiscite - which is what the Minister announced on 19 November - without it being ruled out of order, I drafted amendment No. 5 in order to guarantee that the assets of Irish Water will not be disposed of at any future date. Now that local government is clearly written into our Constitution, my amendment would require that every municipal district in the State would be obliged to approve any motion relating to the disposal of the assets of Irish Water. What I propose will provide a belt-and-braces approach in terms of ensuring that a sale cannot happen at the whim of any future Government or at that of the troika, should that entity ever return. Amendment No. 5 would ensure that the assets of Irish Water could not be sold without the approval of every municipal authority in Ireland. In my opinion, such approval would not be forthcoming. My amendment will provide the security people are seeking on this matter.

As already stated, the commitment given by the Minister on 19 November to the effect that there should be a plebiscite if any assets of Irish Water are to be disposed of is not reflected in the legislation. On that occasion, he also indicated that one of his other priorities is the removal of boil water notices and stated, "In the very near future, for the first time in many years, people in Roscommon will be able to drink water from their tap". I received correspondence from Irish Water in recent days which indicates that it will be March 2017 - at least 12 months after the next general election - before the people in north-east Roscommon will actually be able to drink the water from their taps. That eventuality is a long way down the road. In the interim and if they live in urban areas, these people will be obliged to pay €130 per year for the pleasure of receiving water which is below the proper standard.

Some 12 months ago, the former Minister of State, Deputy O'Dowd, provided the following commitment:

Irish Water should not be allowed to charge for water supplies that are subject to restrictions on health grounds. This is why the Act gives the Minister power to make directions in this regard. I have no doubt that people who do not have access to a safe and healthy supply of water should not and will not be charged for it.

I wanted this to be reflected in the legislation at that time but I was informed that there was no need because people would not be charged for water supplies that are subject to restrictions on health grounds. Under the Bill before the House, those who live in urban areas will be charged €130 per year for water that is unfit for human consumption. The Minister can say what he likes and provide all the assurances he wants. However, the reality is that it must be written into the legislation that the approval of the Irish people will be required. We have been given commitments in the past 12 months but these are not reflected in the Bill and, as I have just outlined, they have not been honoured by the Government.

The Minister's commitment that he gave here just less than a month ago, that is, that there will be a plebiscite if there is any disposal of assets, is not written into the legislation. It states there "may" be a plebiscite, so it is at the whim of the Government in power. If that Government has the troika or IMF breathing down its neck because of the dire situation the country is in, a financial motion or emergency motion will be introduced ramming this through. That is why I am asking the Minister to accept the amendment I have tabled, which would at least ensure all county councillors, who are directly elected by every legal resident over the age of 18, would have a direct say in any disposal of assets.

While my proposal does not provide the constitutional amendment many of us would like to have seen included in the legislation, or provide for the plebiscite the Minister promised but which he did not write into the legislation, it at least ensures the public will be consulted by their local public representatives, who have a constitutional role now because of the provisions in our Constitution in regard to local government. Each municipal district would, in its own right, make a decision as to whether any of the assets owned by Irish Water could be disposed of in the future. In light of the severe shortcomings in section 2 of the legislation, I hope the Minister will accept my amendment.

Deputy Joe Higgins

The fact that the Dáil is sitting after midnight, in the early morning of 10 December, to debate for one hour amendments to the Water Services Bill that could easily be debated in time allocated on Thursday and Friday is a tribute to the overweening arrogance of the newly arrived Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government. He is newly arrived but already delusional about leaving a so-called legacy. Make no mistake: this is the Minister's two-fingered gesture to the tens of thousands of ordinary, decent people - the taxpayers of this country - who will gather tomorrow outside Dáil Éireann to say they do not want his noxious legislation or odious water charges, which they understand to be another bondholders' and bankers' tax. It is a Minister of the Labour Party who is giving the people the finger.

The Minister is a young and mightily ambitious man in a mighty hurry, but young men in a hurry should make haste slowly. I can tell him now what his legacy will be if he persists along this road with his water tax. He will be known for having started off by attempting to defy a mass movement of people demanding the abolition of this austerity tax called the water charge. He will be known for having been met by ongoing resistance. If he persists in spite of the mass boycott of the odious tax next April, when the first bills are issued, that movement will continue until the next general election if the charges are not gone before then. He will be defeated by that mass movement, be it in the next few weeks, April or in the general election. To the extent that the Minister, with his colleagues in the Labour Party and Fine Gael, arrogantly defies the wishes of a huge majority of the people, there will be a reduction in the number of Deputies, particularly from the Labour Party, coming back to this Dáil. That will be the legacy of this Minister.

It is quite incredible that the Deputies in the Labour Party and Fine Gael, who obviously wanted no debate at this ludicrous hour of the night and having heard the very rational proposal on how this debate should be ordered, had not the guts to vote down the Government's proposal and say the discussion should be made in daylight in full view of the people tomorrow, Thursday and Friday.

I support the amendments before us while wholly opposing the legislation. The idea that a buffer or blocks to the privatisation of Irish Water is included in the legislation is nothing short of the most incredible mendacity, as has been pointed out. If resolutions going in the direction of privatisation are passed, proposals may, if the Government decides to proceed, be submitted by plebiscite. There is no compulsion. In any case, as I pointed out before, this is cynicism from start to finish. No Government can tie the Government that will succeed it to the legislation it passes. The Dáil that succeeds can overturn this legislation depending on the combination of parties, if a majority of that Dáil wishes. Therefore, the desperate Labour Party, panicked by a movement of people power while arrogantly trying to defy it, is pretending it is taking account of the overwhelming view of the people that our water services should be in public hands and not in the hands of Irish Water, which they want to see the back of. The hapless Greens and a few other hapless individuals, including some trade union leaders who are, incredibly, supporting water charges, are putting forward the idea of a referendum as an alibi for their betrayals in regard to being responsible for the introduction of water charges in the first place. It is cynicism from start to finish.

With regard to the privatisation issue, Deputy Naughten should note that not all of us made a mistake in regard to Telecom Éireann and Eircom. I was a member of this Dáil at the time in question and my voice was absolutely opposed to it. I understood what was to happen and, unfortunately, it did happen.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is the Deputy concluding?

Deputy Joe Higgins

I am about to. The Minister brought us here at this hour of the night so we will exercise our prerogative to the best of our ability in the time allotted.

Should a plebiscite be held, it should not be confined to the citizens of this State, as proposed in the legislation. My colleague, Deputy Ruth Coppinger, will move amendment No. 7. Why should a plebiscite be confined just to citizens? In the area I have the privilege of representing, approximately one quarter of residents are from outside Ireland. Many have become citizens but very many have not. However, they are taxpayers and residents. The Minister wants them to pay his water tax so they should have a vote on any proposals for Uisce Éireann or Irish Water in the event that it will still be surviving in some shape or form after the Irish people have done away with this Government, its water taxes and all the rest of it.

I hope Members of the Government parties who occasionally stand up and claim to have such a mantle of democracy support this extension of democratic rights to the residents and taxpayers of the country generally.

Deputy Ruth Coppinger

People will be surprised to hear that the Government is not serious about a plebiscite to keep Irish Water in public ownership and is refusing to accept the word "shall" instead of "may" or any compulsion to hold a plebiscite. I agree with the proposal that any vote should be taken in local authority areas - in municipalities rather than on a State-wide basis.

I endorse what my colleague has said with regard to citizens. The Government has no compunction about taking money from the non-Irish who make up 12% of the population of the State, so it should also allow them a say in the fate of the water supply that they are being asked to pay for.

I also ask, under amendment No. 8, that the Minister accept that in any plebiscite the McKenna principles should apply and that public money should not be used to promote one side of the debate or to promote the selling off of the water system to a private entity. I am sure the Minister will accept that.

We should have brought the sleeping bags tonight. We may even need them tomorrow night, because the conduct of the Government has added to the cynicism that is out there and to the numbers who will protest tomorrow. The news earlier that the Government had proposed a motion of confidence in itself sent an air of disbelief and bewilderment around the country, and to hear that the Government proposes a debate at 12.30 a.m. on something as serious as the water Bill has also added to the air of disbelief about the Government's carry-on. The Government may have thought it was sticking two fingers up to the crowds, but this will probably result in an increase in the number of people who will come out and exercise their democratic rights tomorrow and deliver their message of utter lack of confidence in the Government, particularly after the carry-on of the Government today and tonight, having us here until 1.30 a.m., with massive interest on the Government benches as usual.

Deputy Brian Stanley

I am disappointed that the amendment I tabled, amendment No. 2, was ruled out of order. There is considerable concern out there about the possible intentions of the Government or a future Government towards water services, and the Minister, Deputy Kelly, and the Minister of State, Deputy Coffey, need to take this on board.

There is an amendment here from Deputy Naughten in relation to the word "shall". According to the proposal of the Minister, it would require a resolution of the Dáil to hold a plebiscite, but all the Bill states is that the Government or a future Government "may" do so, and that raises considerable concerns. The intention of my amendment was to put this in the hands of the people and not to trust the Government or any future Government on this matter. The intention was to put a clause in the Constitution.

I am also disappointed that we simply get a message of six or seven words stating "The following amendments have been ruled out of order". We do not get any explanation as to why that happens. I find that difficult. We put the work into submitting amendments to shape legislation and have an input, and that is the level of response. The Government, in its weak-kneed and weak-willed response of trying to placate the public - or satisfy half of the public and dampen down the Opposition - then comes along with a weak Bill stating that a future Government may, if it so decides, hold a plebiscite. I fully support Deputy Naughten's amendment in that regard.

I also support Deputy Catherine Murphy's amendment. While it is not the one that I would favour as my first choice, as I stated, I would favour a constitutional amendment to put the decision into the hands of the people. Recognising that we are where we are, it is a step in the right direction to insert the phrase "of not fewer than two thirds of the Members" to ensure that Irish Water cannot be sold off without the agreement of two thirds of the Members of the Dáil, and it certainly makes it that bit more difficult for a future Government.

In reading the Bill and studying how these amendments are being handled, my worst fears are being deepened. I am very concerned about the Bill that has been introduced. There will be a number of problems with it. It adds further to the mess around Irish Water-Uisce Éireann and water services. We have been going down the wrong road since 1 January this year, when we transferred this out of the hands of the 31 local authorities. I heard both the Minister and the Minister of State say that we could not continue with a situation in which water services began and stopped at county boundaries. That was never the case. I live in a county that is surrounded by other counties, and there has been co-operation with all of those counties in the provision of water services. It is uncomplicated. The way it is done is simple. There is co-operation with Carlow, Offaly and the other counties.

I am disappointed about the way this has been handled. I support the amendments to which I referred, which try to make the best of a bad situation, but I am extremely disappointed that the Sinn Féin amendment to put a provision into the Constitution - effectively, to put the decision into the hands of the people now and forever - has been disallowed.

Deputy Stephen S. Donnelly

Rather than the plebiscite that the Minister proposes, I tabled a Bill looking to alter Article 10 of the Constitution - a simple line stating that the water supply could not be sold into private ownership - but it was ruled out of order by the Ceann Comhairle using a new Standing Order that was never meant to be used in that way. I wanted, in the Dáil, to criticise the Ceann Comhairle for his actions, which, I believed, were repugnant to good parliamentary work, but I was told by the Ceann Comhairle's office that there is another Standing Order that means I am not allowed to criticise the Ceann Comhairle for anything he does. Obviously, because I am not allowed criticise the Ceann Comhairle, I will not suggest that he is acting contrary to the good working of the Parliament, but we could have an interesting conversation if he was not protected by that interesting Standing Order.

I resubmitted the provision as amendment No. 3 to this Bill, and it was ruled out of order. Because the previous Standing Order could not be used, a new Standing Order was used to rule it out this time. It was ruled that my amendment, which seeks to delete a provision of the Bill, does not speak to the provisions of the Bill. There was also a technical reason - that a Bill that changes the Constitution can only concern itself with changing the Constitution. While some of these rulings may be technically correct, as a Member of the Oireachtas, I feel that when I am trying to do the work of Parliament and table legislation that I and those I represent believe in, we are dealing with an apparatus and a set of rules that seems dedicated to stopping us from having sensible parliamentary conversation. There seems to be a body of work that needs to be done to change the Standing Orders of this House. Deputy Kelly is a member of Cabinet. I had four amendments tabled for this evening, all of which were very sensible, but three of them have been ruled out of order. One amendment that was ruled out of order sought a reduction in charges for those who have no wastewater treatment, such as in Arklow, which would have reduced revenues to Irish Water.

I had that ruled out of order on the basis that it would result in a charge on the Exchequer. How Irish Water not getting extra money from Arklow is a charge on the Exchequer is beyond me. I did a count and discovered that more than half of the 31 amendments tabled by Members of the House, other than the Minister, were ruled out of order. Deputy Naughten's amendment, which dared to suggest that a "may" should be turned into a "shall" also cannot be discussed by Parliament because that would incur a charge on the Exchequer. I am aware the Minister has nothing to do with the amendments being ruled out of order but he is sitting at the Cabinet table and it is impossible for us as Members of the Oireachtas to conduct proper parliamentary business when faced with a set of rules which seem dedicated to stopping us conducting parliamentary business.

Deputy Jonathan O'Brien

That is why they are there.

Deputy Stephen S. Donnelly

Perhaps the Minister could raise at the Cabinet table that these Standing Orders need to be changed to allow us to do the job of Parliament.

In terms of the substance of the change, I have no doubt the Minister, Deputy Alan Kelly, as a Labour Minister, would act against any privatisation. The question is why I and others want to move beyond a plebiscite to constitutional protection. The reason is as follows. First, the public do not trust the plebiscite because legislation can be changed and, second, we do not know what is going to come from Europe. We saw the letter from Jean-Claude Trichet to the late Brian Lenihan. He demanded structural reforms. The ECB acted completely beyond its mandate in demanding structural reforms. Four weeks later the first memorandum of understanding, MOU, was signed and it contained two structural reforms. One of them was that Irish people must be charged for their water. One can be absolutely sure there is a view in Europe that the Irish water system should be privatised.

I accept the Minister’s bona fides. I accept he would not vote for the privatisation of water but I do not believe for a second that a future Irish Government is not going to come under very serious pressure from Europe, potentially legally binding pressure, that says the plebiscite is all well and good but a new EU directive states we have to privatise the water supply. My question to the Minister is as follows. If he is dedicated to the Irish water supply never being privatised and if the plebiscite does not provide the guarantee that is required, will he explain to the House what the downside to a referendum is if it achieves what he claims and what I believe he wants to see?

Deputy Fergus O'Dowd

This is a very important debate. I do not have any issue with when it is discussed because this is a democratic Chamber but I would much prefer that it was in the committee rooms or during normal sitting times because the public is very interested in the points being made.

I wish to respond to the point made by Deputy Naughten. He is absolutely right; as Minister of State at the time, that was the commitment I discussed with the Department and that had gone through the apparatus of the Department. I said it because it was agreed and it was in my speech. That has all been changed but that is what happened. Deputy Naughten is correct; people who cannot drink their water should not be charged for it. Part of the building up of a relationship between the Irish people and Irish Water, Uisce Éireann, is fairness and equity and going out of our way to make sure people who do not have a proper supply of water or who do not have a safe, drinkable or potable supply of water do not pay for it. I wholeheartedly agree with that.

When I previously acted in the House as Minister of State I gave a commitment on the Water Services (No. 1) Bill that the Water Services (No. 2) Bill would contain a commitment that Irish Water could never be privatised, and that the company would always and forever be a public company. That was agreed, but when the No. 2 Bill was handed to me as I went into the Seanad on the day of the debate, the provision was excluded from the legislation. That concerned me greatly. The Department was fully aware of my very strong and forceful views at that time. I discussed the issue with the then Minister, Mr. Hogan, and with others. Eventually, the provision was brought in as an amendment to the Bill. I remain deeply concerned at other agendas – they may be European as Deputy Donnelly suggested – but I do not know where they are coming from. It was never articulated to me why we should not and could not have a referendum on Irish Water never going into private ownership. Enshrining the provision in legislation and copper-fastening it in the Constitution would ensure there never would be such a possibility. We have reason to be concerned.

When the Minister comes to discuss the section, which I know will not happen tonight, I ask him to explain why the Government has decided that will not happen. In terms of the acceptability of Irish Water and of the charges and issues concerning it, there would be a vote of between 80% and 90% in favour of a constitutional referendum to ensure Irish Water could never be privatised. I am convinced there are other forces at work. They may not necessarily be political forces. I do not know where they are coming from but they exist, they are active and they have an influence. I accept that people might not like what I say but it must be said. I am aware of other issues which I will bring to the Minister’s attention privately when the debate is over, which might inform him of other areas to which he could look in the Department for confirmation of some of the things to which I refer.

At the end of the day the debate is about people having confidence in Irish Water. We should have a referendum. That is what the people I represent want. It is what people of all political parties want – Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, Labour, Sinn Féin and those who do not subscribe to a political party. Why do we not have it?

Deputy Seamus Healy

This section deals with a plebiscite on the ownership of Irish Water. The measure is in the Bill due to the serious and understandable concern among the public generally that Irish Water, if it ever gets up and running, and if water charges are introduced, will eventually be privatised and sold on for private profit to super rich Irish or international organisations and companies, people who are already very wealthy and who are already involved in the Irish Water scene. That is very understandable because once water becomes a commodity then it is inevitable that full cost recovery will arise. The charge, though initially capped as an introductory offer by the Government, will sky-rocket and the company will eventually be privatised and sold on to private interests.

That is a reasonable and understandable situation for ordinary people because they have seen it happen before, in particular in the case of refuse charges, which were introduced at a very low cost but after a number of years we now have a situation where there is a very significant charge for refuse of approximately €300 per year per household. The waiver scheme has been abolished and the refuse service has been privatised. People are very much aware of that.

The notion of a plebiscite or referendum was initially introduced by Government supporters and the Green Party, in effect, as a diversionary tactic to try to get people’s mind off charges.

We heard it first from Mr. Jack O'Connor of SIPTU; we heard it from the Green Party that was the initiator of the idea of water charges and we heard it from Deputy Joe Costello of the Labour Party. As has been said by other speakers, the formulation in the Bill reminds me of the fraud perpetrated on the people in the last general election, in particular, by the Labour Party which produced its Tesco advertisement with the warning not to vote for Fine Gael. It stated, "Vote for us and we will stop Fine Gael bringing in water charges". This is something very similar. The Minister came into the House a fortnight ago and gave the impression that water services would be given protection by being inserted into the Constitution in order that they could not be privatised. This is not provided for in the Bill and its provisions are worse than useless. It is sleight of hand and trickery. As other speakers said, the Bill does not provide for any specific or exact circumstance. It states the Government may do - not that it has to - if it so decides. This section is worse than useless and more trickery by the Government, the Minister and the Labour Party. It is worthless. Amendments Nos. 4 to 8, inclusive, are worthwhile, but if the Bill is to be useful, what is needed is an amendment to the Constitution to prevent the privatisation of water forever - full stop.

Deputy Joan Collins

The Minister has said he is listening to the people, but he has not listened to them on this issue. They want a referendum and constitutional protection to prevent the privatisation of water services. The Minister says he is providing protection, but that is not the case. Holding a plebiscite is not good enough and it is not good enough under the terms of the Bill. We do not know what will come from the European Union. The TTIP, Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, is being discussed very secretly with regard to multinationals challenging governments and their public utilities. Therefore, holding a referendum is more crucial than ever to ensure the future protection of Irish Water.

I met the Detroit water brigade today. Its members explained how their water service had not been sold off but that every single piece of it had been privatised and contracted out to contractors to carry out the work involved for the city. The water service today bears no resemblance to what it was ten years ago. I, therefore, support the amendments.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

One of the reasons people are absolutely furious and have come out onto the streets in recent weeks and will come out again in huge numbers tomorrow - it is not just about paying water charges - is the dishonesty in politics, with political parties, Governments Ministers and Taoisigh thinking they can play the people for fools. The people are very angry about this. Every now and again the Government faces a crisis and people get really angry and then apparently we have ardent words from the Taoiseach and the Minister about how they are listening to the people. On the face of it, they seem to display a little humility and appear to be listening, but actually the spin, the dishonesty, the manoeuvring, the game playing and the attempt to play people for fools continue. We have seen it again tonight with this carry-on in respect of the late sitting. It is a peculiar, absurd little game that I do not fully understand and, frankly, I do not even care too much, as it is part of the continuous game playing. The Bill represents the same.

There is a commitment not to privatise when they know that the people have stated clearly that they do not want to see their water services privatised and they want cast iron guarantees that they will not be privatised. For the past week or two, after the Bill was published, the Government has been saying, "We have it now. They will not be privatised. It is included in the Bill that they will not be privatised and we have taken measures to make sure they will not be privatised." However, the devil is in the detail, as usual. There is no guarantee. It is utterly meaningless and a pretence. It is another attempt to deceive and the Government keeps doing it. I wonder if the Minister thinks he will not be found out. Part of the reason people are on the streets is the way in which the Labour Party, having been humiliated on the issue of bin charges for its complicity in the privatisation of refuse services, continued to spin a line, "It was all those people who were boycotting bin charges who caused the privatisation of refuse services". Was this really the case? How is it that refuse services were privatised in rural areas first where there had been no boycott campaigns and no opposition to paying? The last places to have refuse services privatised were the places in which people resisted. They lasted ten years longer than anyone else precisely because they had resisted. Does the Minister think they have not worked this out? Does he think they have not worked out that if they have to pay five cent in user charges, it will only move in one direction and that the services will be privatised? Does he think they have not worked out that when the contracts to install the meters go to the richest man in the country, that, in fact, they have already been privatised and that all of his assurances mean nothing? Does he think they have not figured this out? Does he think they are stupid? He obviously does because he would not be saying what he is if he did not think he could play the people for fools. However, they are not fools. I cannot believe he believes what he is saying because he knows that once user charges are introduced, privatisation is inevitable, as everybody knows.

As for the off balance sheet stuff, we listened to the people from Detroit who described it as "financialisation", another word for bonds. They said the issuing of bonds in Detroit had led directly to charges sky rocketing to the point where people were being charged nearly $1,000 a year and where three quarters of the charge was for water going out. They were being charged three times more for the water coming off the roof than the clean water going in. That is where financialisation led because the bondholders placed demands on the water company to jack up the charges to get their pound of flesh. The Minister should stop playing the people for fools because they are not, as he will discover tomorrow.

Deputy Peter Mathews

I wish to make a couple of quick points. I echo what Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett has said. The European Union has taken us for fools, as has the Government in turn. This is an island and the shoreline has always been in the ownership of the State and will remain so.

Water is an essential element for the life of the people living in the State. Therefore, it should absolutely be constitutionally within the ownership of the State and the people of Ireland. It is very simple. Off-balance-sheet financing is being used to try to fund an entity which will require approximately €10 billion to have it in working order, fix leaks, have proper reservoirs and capacity and water treatment plants. Here is a suggestion: if the Government showed a bit of courage and capability it would say to Draghi and the EU Commission that €25 billion of misplaced losses on the Irish people would be corrected and that €10 billion of it would be allocated in the first instance to the water supply and €15 billion to other capital projects in education, the health system, which is buckling, to support people who do not even have homes and to build homes. This €25 billion would go a long way and it should be used immediately. The bonds should be cancelled. It would give the necessary boost and resources to any Government to start the work of fair reconstruction of this country. The shoreline is always in the ownership of the State and water should always be in the ownership of the State. It is that simple.

Deputy Alan Kelly

I did not rule out of order any of the amendments. These decisions were made beyond me. Section 2 is a very important part of the Bill as everyone is aware. The provision safeguards the public ownership of Irish water and it provides for the holding of a plebiscite if any future Government proposes to change the ownership of Irish Water. Personally I do not think this will ever happen. I do not believe a future Government will in any way try to change the ownership of Irish Water. The section provides that where a Government proposes to initiate legislation to change the ownership, or would potentially do so, it must obtain a resolution from both Houses that they are in favour of the legislation. Subject to such resolutions being obtained, the Government would then hold a plebiscite of the people. The legislation could not proceed without the support of the people and this is quite clear. The section includes the provision that the details of the plebiscite would be set out in regulations.

The amendment tabled by Deputy Catherine Murphy refers to requiring the resolution from both Houses of the Oireachtas to be approved by two thirds of the Members. I cannot accept the amendment as it would place more stringent conditions on a future Government than applies at present. Amendment No. 5, tabled by Deputy Naughten, proposes that the holding of a plebiscite would require a resolution from each municipal district in addition to the resolution from both Houses of the Oireachtas. This condition is onerous and would be administratively quite cumbersome. Moreover I believe it is absolutely unnecessary and obviously I will not accept it.

Amendment No. 7 proposes amending the eligibility criteria for voting in the plebiscite. The Government believes the appropriate eligibility criteria to vote on ownership of such a vital national resource are the same as those for eligibility to vote in a referendum. Therefore I cannot accept the amendment tabled by Deputies Coppinger, Higgins and Murphy.

Amendment No. 8 proposes that a provision be inserted to state the Government shall not extend public moneys for the purposes of promoting a particular outcome of the plebiscite. Section 2(7) requires the Minister to publish details of the proposal and the reasons for it to be submitted to the people in the plebiscite. This amendment is unnecessary and I cannot accept it. Limits on the use of public moneys are detailed in electoral legislation so there is no need to repeat such provisions in this legislation.

Several other issues were raised by Deputies. Deputy O'Dowd raised some issues he feels need to be brought to my attention or the attention of the House. By all means he should please raise them here if he feels it appropriate to do so, or raise them with me in a private capacity, if that is appropriate for whatever reason.

Some of Deputy Donnelly's amendments were ruled out of order. The European Commission is obliged to protect national sovereignty in respect of the ownership of water services and has issued such communication to the Government in the recent past. I am quite happy to provide this communication to the Deputy.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.