Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 9 Nov 2016

Vol. 928 No. 1

Thirty-fifth Amendment of the Constitution (Water in Public Ownership) (No. 2) Bill 2016: Second Stage [Private Members]

Deputy Joan Collins

Tairgim: "Go léifear an Bille an Dara hUair anois."

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

I want to begin by thanking all of the parties, groups and independent Deputies that have indicated their support for this Bill advocating a referendum on the public ownership and management of our water, the Thirty-fifth Amendment of the Constitution (Water in Public Ownership) (No.2) Bill 2016. The Bill specifically states:

The Government shall be collectively responsible for the protection, management and maintenance of the public water system. The Government shall ensure in the public interest that this resource remains in public ownership and management.

I am also pleased that the Government has decided not to oppose the Bill and has allowed it to proceed to Committee Stage without a vote, although it is important to say that such a vote would have been comfortably carried.

This Bill, which was drafted in conjunction with the Right2Water campaign, does not belong to me or to any other politician or political party. It belongs to people in communities across Ireland, as does the water it protects. The Bill’s progress thus far is a reflection of the power of a movement, the largest in the history of the State, and one in which many of us in this House have had the privilege to participate. At the same time, there were many here who simply did not get the message of Right2Water, who did not understand its significance or the scale of its support. The Right2Water campaign was about much more than water charges. It was a movement against austerity and the politics that underpinned it and it showed that everyday people can change society when they get active and organised. First and foremost it was a mass movement by ordinary citizens against what they correctly saw as the first steps towards the privatisation of water services.

The amendment proposed in this Bill gives voice to that central demand, that our water services should remain in public ownership and, I stress, public management. The latter is a very important part of the Bill. It was drafted by Treasa Brannick O’Cillin with the assistance of senior counsel, Séamas Ó Tuathail. It places responsibility on this or any future Government to ensure that both the ownership and management of our water remains in public hands. Placing the amendment in Article 28 of the Constitution gives a guarantee to the citizens of this State that the public water system will not be privatised. This is the proper place for the amendment, alongside areas such as health care and education, befitting of the importance of water to life and society.

I must make clear that this amendment does not deal with group water schemes. By specifying the public water system as its concern, it does not seek to bring citizens’ private water schemes, or systems built for private use within the remit of the Government. Furthermore, the amendment does not intervene into the legislative framework. It does not seek to abolish water charges or Irish Water. Although I maintain my opposition to both, that is a battle for another day following the report by the expert commission. The amendment will, however, guarantee that the Irish Government is responsible for our water and its management, from the bodies of water connected to the provision of public water, to all systems from collection to distribution, including waste water systems. If it is passed, these will be the sole responsibility of the Irish Government. No Government can sell them off or pass on the management to for-profit companies. This will be a victory for everyone in this country who believes that water is a human right and not a commodity. This amendment will also be a blow against privatisation. In England and Wales today, because of the privatisation of water, 23.6% of people live in a state of water poverty. Private water bills have sky-rocketed by more than 300% since the system was privatised while 19 private water companies make annual profits in excess of £2 billion. This situation must not be repeated in Ireland. Ireland has had its share of nightmare privatisation experiences. We have an unprecedented homelessness crisis in this State today which is directly attributable to the selling off of public housing stock and the turning over of housing, lock, stock and barrel, to the market. Then there is the case of refuse services, privatised after a similar attempt to introduce charges, which has resulted in sky-high rates, bad wages and conditions for workers, a lockout and increases in illegal dumping. All of this is before we get to the case of Telecom Eireann and Eircom, where an essential public asset was sold off at a cut-rate price. Our telecommunications system was starved of investment, leaving the public lacking in the infrastructure needed to build a modern economy.

This is not the only damage done by privatisation. It has also played a key role in corroding the public sphere, the ties that bind us together in society. Given recent events in America there will be a lot of discussion in the coming days about the crisis of democracy and why people are so angry. It would be a mistake to have that conversation without talking about what has changed so fundamentally in our economies in recent years. It is not only the fact that people’s jobs, wages and services have been cut, but also the philosophy that underpins this, namely, the belief that the market is the best way to produce and distribute goods. This philosophy has been used to shrink the terrain of public goods in our economies. This is an attack on democracy because when smaller and smaller proportions of the economy can be owned in common, fewer and fewer decisions can be made in common. The people are disempowered. We need to respond to this with a defence of the common, the part of society that we, the public, own and share.

Water provision is at the forefront of this battle.

Being realistic, I understand there are likely to be attempts to dilute the wording of the Bill on Committee Stage. The best defence against this is maintaining the vigilance of and the pressure exerted by the Right2Water movement which have secured the passage of the Bill to this Stage. The movement comprises everyday activists and trade unions such as Unite, Mandate, the CPSU, OPATSI, the TWU and my own, the CWU. I was very pleased when we received support for the Bill from the country's largest trade union, SIPTU. To Members of this House and the Seanad, all I will say is there is only one thing they need to believe, that is, the public water system should remain within public protection, ownership and management and should not be sold off to private enterprise for the pursuit of profit. If they can agree with this idea, we call on them to support the Bill as it stands without making any change to it.

Deputy Mick Wallace

Like most people in Ireland, I do not think the water service should be privatised, but, sadly, unless we get rid of Irish Water, it might as well be privatised because that is where we are. For want of a better term, Irish Water is another version of the HSE and literally outsourcing just about anything it has on its table. It is carving up the country. We have Aecom in the Dublin area, EPS in the Cork area, Veolia in Kilkenny and Glan Agua in Galway. Between the four of them, they are literally taking over water provision in Ireland. They are designing, constructing and operating facilities. Of course, the money is to be made in operating facilities, which I am sure is not news to the Minister. If people are paying through the Government, it will cost a fortune now that we are allowing Irish Water, a version of the HSE, to arrange how water and wastewater services are organised in Ireland.

There are huge problems. Some of the companies are incredibly big and will do what they like. I will mention one of them. Veolia has just won a 20-year design, build and operate contract with Irish Water which includes an €18.4 million upgrade of wastewater infrastructure in County Donegal. In May it won a 27-month design and build contract in Cavan. The water treatment plant in Athy, County Kildare is operated by it under a 20-year design, build and operate contract. It was the operator of Ireland's largest biomass power plant in Killala, County Mayo. It was to meet the total biomass fuel requirement in the vicinity, with biomass to be brought from the United States, landed at Dublin Port and transported by road across the country. The project has run into the sand because it does not make any sense. I would like to see some transparency on how the whole thing was set up. Was there a tender process? It was a gift to foreign corporations from the State which is about to produce dirty energy, the production of which will be subsidised by the people of Ireland. It was to be expensive. US investors were guaranteed a price well above the level in the wholesale market available to unsubsidised generators. What a disaster we have have at Ringsend. Celtic Anglian Water, a subsidiary of Anglian Water in the United Kingdom, is being allowed to print money because of its contracts and seemingly Irish Water can do nothing about it. Celtic Anglian Water has Irish Water over a barrel and can charge whatever it likes. There is mayhem. The Minister should take a close look at what is happening in Ringsend. I would like him to come back and tell us that everything is grand because I have information from inside the industry that things are far from it. There are huge problems.

Before Irish Water was established, we had the local authorities taking the same route. What Irish Water amounts to is a red tape version of what we had in place around the countryside with several layers on top. Bureaucracy has flourished under Irish Water which has increased the amount of red tape no end. The Minister should tell me I am wrong. Is Irish Water getting huge companies to design, build and operate plants and giving them 20 to 25-year contracts to complete the project? We are giving them powers that will be almost uncontrollable in the years to come similar to the powers Celtic Anglian Water has in Ringsend. Veolia which is not even the biggest in the country but which will probably become the biggest because it will probably gobble up some of the others in the near future is involved in the energy and transport sectors. It had to sell off its transport operation in Israel where it was introducing transport measures in the Occupied Territories. Palestinians, however, were not even allowed to use the transport system. Veolia had received so much bad publicity that it had to pull out of it. It is all over the shop in the United States where it has been thrown out of several cities for bad practice and introducing cost-cutting measures at the cost of quality and because of health concerns. Somebody in the United States said recently that if one wanted to describe what Veolia got up to, it would come in, rape one's water company and leave with money bags. It is to take over water services in this country unless we get rid of Irish Water and the Government takes a direct role in it. Inserting this measure in the Constitution will be a waste of time if we go down this route.

Deputy Clare Daly

There is no doubt that water is the new gold. We have the prospect on a global scale of super profits being realised on the back of what is a necessity to sustain life. Anybody who glances even superficially at what the Government has done in the establishment of Irish Water could come to no other conclusion but that Irish Water is the precursor to an organisation or institution to privatise the water supply because anything else does not make sense. Why, in God's name, would anyone bother, given the lack of economies of scale, installing individual water meters unless they had a plan to define the source of supply in order that they could charge for it and, ultimately, privatise the service? The prospect of our vital life-sustaining water supply being handed over to private hands is very real. In that sense, the idea of constitutional change to protect the water supply and maintain it in public ownership is critically important. If we were to do this, we would find ourselves very much on the side of people globally who have had to engage in battles similar to those engaged in by the Irish population to protect water.

The reality is that on the issue of water privatisation globally the tide had turned precisely at the time when we in Ireland were moving in the opposite direction. Many cities are returning water services to public control. We know that a report by the Transnational Institute-Public Services International research unit and the Multinationals Observatory suggests 180 cities and communities in 35 countries, including in places such as Buenos Aires, Johannesburg, Paris, Berlin and Kuala Lumpur, have re-municipalised their water systems in the past decade. We know that the European Federation of Public Service Unions found clear signs that municipalities in a number of countries across Europe were continuing to move towards re-municipalising rather than privatising water services. We know that services in the United Kingdom are being brought back in-house because outsourcing has proved to be inefficient. The Financial Times suggested local authorities had grown sceptical about the savings outsourcing could deliver, as well as fearing a backlash against private companies which were making large profits from taxpayers.

If the Minister and his colleague could tone it down it a bit, it would be helpful; it is hard to speak here at the same time.

By 2011, some 80 out of 140 councils in the UK had brought back local services on the expiry of private contracts. This has been driven by an economic failure of the private model. The reduction in costs and greater efficiency of in-house services has been a major factor in taking many of these services back into public ownership.

While I do not have time to develop the points, it is commonly known that Corporate Watch in the UK investigated the finances of 19 water and sewerage companies in England and Wales, and found that about a third of the money spent on water bills goes to banks and investors as dividends. People pay £2 billion more per year or £80 per household than they would if water services were publicly owned. Six companies are avoiding billions of pounds in taxes by routing profits through tax havens. We know that the CEOs of 19 water companies in England and Wales were paid about £10 million in salaries and bonuses.

Basically privatisation is a bad model for public services, critically for life-sustaining ones such as water; that has been demonstrated the world over. It has wreaked havoc everywhere and it results in increased charges, lack of public accountability, higher operating costs, worse services, and a loss in jobs in the water industry, not to mind a deteriorating infrastructure at precisely the time when our infrastructure needs to be developed. Any cursory examination of any of the areas where water has been privatised would vindicate that.

There are no market-based solutions to the crisis of water services and no market-based solutions to climate change or environmental crisis. In fact, if we want to protect our water we need to ensure the market is excluded from its provision. It is not just a case of the Bill enshrining water in public ownership, but the management of our water supply must be maintained in public ownership through local authorities and State bodies, and not outsourced to organisations such as Capita, as we have seen in the UK. The enshrining of the management as well as the ownership of our water supply publicly are equally important.

I believe the people have spoken on this. They have a deep desire to keep our water supply in public ownership. We are an island nation that gets a lot of rain. We know it costs money to deliver our water, but it is a public service that should be available to all based on need and not on the money in individuals' pockets at the end of the day.

Minister for Housing, Planning, Community and Local Government (Deputy Simon Coveney)

I am pleased to participate in this evening's debate, which provides another useful opportunity to discuss issues concerning the public water system and its importance to citizens, communities, our economy and the environment. The debate comes at a critical time in our collective deliberations on the future of domestic water charges and how we fund domestic water services into the future. Any discussion that informs that debate is welcome.

I understand and appreciate the intention of the Bill before the House, which seeks to underline public ownership of our public water system. While the Bill has not undergone the necessary consultation or deliberation required to establish whether providing additional constitutional protection can, or should, be provided to the public ownership of our public water infrastructure, the Government will not oppose it on Second Stage. However, for the reasons I will outline in the course of my contribution, it is imperative that the Bill undergo the necessary deliberation and scrutiny at pre-legislative stage to ensure that its intention or wording does not run the risk of unintended consequences.

I acknowledge the sincerity of Members from all sides of the House on the need to give public reassurance on this issue. Everybody here wants public water infrastructure that serves the needs of the citizens and businesses of this country. Everyone here, I believe, wants this to be achieved through public, not private, ownership.

Members have been proposing a constitutional amendment that guarantees future public ownership for some time. I have consistently said that I am open to considering workable proposals that provide the necessary certainty on this issue. Three similar Bills seeking a constitutional amendment on water infrastructure have been published this year. We may disagree over how to fund water services, but we share a common view on the State owning this vital public service. Not once have I heard a dissenting voice in this House or in the Seanad on the issue. There are issues regarding tendering certain jobs, processes and functions, but there is general agreement on the core issue of public ownership.

To address public and political concerns, the previous Government, of which I was a member, legislated twice to reassure the people that Irish Water and its infrastructure would not be privatised by a future Government. The Water Services Act 2013 prohibited the shareholders of Irish Water, comprising me as the relevant Minister, the Minister for Finance and the board of Irish Water, from alienating their shares.

In 2014, the Government introduced a further safeguard in the Water Services Act 2014. Any privatisation or part-privatisation of Irish Water, through alienation of any ministerial share in Irish Water to anyone other than another Minister, cannot be initiated unless three specific conditions are met: both Houses of the Oireachtas pass a resolution approving such a proposal; the prior approval of a majority of voters in a plebiscite is obtained on the proposal, in other words the public would have to vote; and the Minister must then initiate legislation to privatise Irish Water or alienate any share held by the Government.

Existing legislation, therefore, already provides a statutory prohibition on the disposal of Irish Water and its water services infrastructure. The question for this Oireachtas is therefore whether the legal safeguards already in place need to or can be further strengthened through an appropriate amendment to our Constitution. Some speakers this evening have stated that Irish Water was designed to be privatised. I know that is not the case and it was never the intention of the previous Government to do that. That is borne out by the legislation we have passed since the setting up of the single utility.

Although I am supportive of any additional measures to safeguard public ownership of the public water system, I also recognise the complexity of a constitutional amendment. We should not assume this is a simple matter. The Constitution is the fundamental legal document of the State. It usually does not explicitly recognise the structures of the State that operate below our key institutions. These structures, such as the education and health systems, or the country's energy and road networks, are usually prescribed in legislation.

An additional complication to any constitutional recognition of public ownership of water infrastructure is the proposed wording. It is challenging to construct an appropriate amendment given the various categories of ownership of water services infrastructure in the State. Among those that might experience unforeseen circumstances are infrastructure funded by the State but operated by private group water schemes, or boreholes located on privately owned land. Seeking to enshrine such property in public ownership through a constitutional referendum inherently risks having unintended consequences that could impinge on individuals' constitutional rights to private property. I accept what the Deputy said in her opening statement that that is not the intention of the Bill, but we need to tease out some of those issues in committee.

Owing to these complexities, the Government, in consultation with the Attorney General, in seeking to bring certainty to the future ownership of the public water system, has legislated twice to protect its public ownership. We have given reassurance to the public that they will own the infrastructure that provides us with water services - the most basic and fundamental of services for homes, businesses, social services and communities - unless they, the public, decide otherwise in the future. I, therefore, reserve my position to bring forward a Government amendment to the Bill on Committee Stage.

I take the opportunity of this debate to acknowledge the strong sense of public service that has always defined those who have worked in water services. This spirit of dedication to the public endures in the water sector of today. Whether it is staff of local authorities, custodians of water services for over 100 years and now partners of Irish Water, or those who work directly for the national utility, those responsible for water services delivery have always strived to provide our citizens with a quality service.

I acknowledge that there have been problems in our water infrastructure, associated predominantly with underinvestment and an inadequate national approach to planning and investment for many decades. Yet staff in the sector, and in the group water sector with its strong voluntary dimension, have always shown great dedication to serving the public. We have seen this again and again in times of emergency such as recent flooding and storm events. Staff continue to operate plants and maintain our national assets in difficult circumstances, often without adequate funding. Employees of Irish Water, as well as those who have installed meters on its behalf, have worked with great professionalism in sometimes very hostile environments. Not only is the water system publicly owned, but the employees, whether they be local authority or Irish Water, have always shown a commitment to meeting the needs of the public. They too are an important national asset and this is something which is sometimes lost in the debate.

Once again I thank Deputy Collins and her fellow signatories for bringing forward this Bill. I accept the spirit with which the proposal is made and for that reason I and my Government colleagues will not be opposing the Bill at this Stage. Given the legal and technical issues I have outlined, I must stress again the need for careful consideration of the proposal and its wording between now and its scrutiny at prelegislative stage.

I offer the Deputies who are bringing forward this legislation, if they would like to take it up, the expertise of the Department with regard to looking at the potential flaws that may be in the wording, and I believe there may be some. I know the Deputies have named the legal people who drafted the proposed legislation; perhaps they have got it right or perhaps not. Let us not underestimate the challenge of putting a referendum question together. For a start, a referendum costs the State some €20 million. If one looks at the history of referendums in Ireland, we can see that they are complex and often the debate ends up being about something very different from the question that is actually being asked. We need to have a robust discussion on whether or not it is necessary to take it to a referendum if there are other ways in which we can have the same effect which is to reassure people that there is no privatisation agenda or route here. I am happy to have that discussion in an open and frank manner and I look forward to that discussion taking place on Committee Stage where we can tease through all the issues and get it right collectively.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Declan Breathnach)

I call Deputy Cowen who will be sharing his time with Deputies Marc MacSharry and Thomas Byrne.

Deputy Barry Cowen

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill. My party and I were always committed, and remain committed, to water services and wastewater services and the infrastructure network of both being retained in public ownership. This was reaffirmed and stated categorically in our confidence and supply arrangement with Fine Gael when we agreed to facilitate the formation of Government. There was also a commitment in the pathway programme put in place to resolve the whole issue around the future financing of the water network and system as a utility and that Irish Water would remain as an entity in public ownership and that it would have statutory responsibility to the House with regard to the measurement of various qualities and aspects of the delivery of that service. That being the case, and acknowledging the thrust, sentiment and goodwill associated with those who have brought this Bill forward, it is our intention to work with it to seek consensus in the Chamber to assure the public that Members of the Dáil will, if necessary, amend the Constitution to ensure these facilities, services and networks remain in public ownership for all time.

There were some options open to us when considering the Bill and its implications, and there was a thought process around the three options. One option was to reject the Bill by reasoned amendment which would mean voting against it. The reason for this were the issues around private wells and group water schemes. Earlier, the proposer made reference to the fact they had refused to move into that realm so that it would not become something that might be challenged legally in the future. I respect their intentions in this, but we must be conscious of the fact that while many group water schemes are in private ownership, they access water from a public source. That is a contradiction that needs to be ironed out. As the previous speaker said, because of the new Standing Orders that are in place, and because the Bill is coming from this side of the House, it has to go for prelegislative scrutiny rather than to Committee Stage. I acknowledge the commitment of the Minister when he said he will make the relevant expertise available to the proposers to assist them and to amend the Bill, if necessary, for it to achieve the desired result and consequence that we all want to see. The Minister's offer is welcome and I want to state that publicly.

The other option was to reject the Bill and highlight the existing legislation which, as strong as it is, could be strengthened to further reassert the belief among all Members of the House in a commitment to retain these facilities, services and network in public ownership. As the Minister said, a Bill would need to be passed by both Houses and then a plebiscite would need to be held for this to be allowed to be taken into private ownership, if that were the result. One could, for example, insist on a two thirds majority. In separating the whole issue around the charging mechanism and the ownership issue, I accept there is broad support among the public for the network, services and facilities to be retained in public ownership. If the public can only be assured of this sentiment, as being the sentiment of this Dáil, and to preclude anybody doing otherwise in the future, then maybe a referendum is possible. For the reason outlined previously and by virtue of the fact we can go to prelegislative scrutiny, we can help and assist the proposers in framing this in such a way that it has universal approval. There is no doubt, because of the issues around group water schemes, etc., there are some reservations, fears and worries which must be expressed. Ultimately, we must reserve the position on this issue until the process of prelegislative scrutiny and Committee Stage has moved on to a point where there is universal support and we have addressed those concerns, worries and issues. Then I and my party would have no problem agreeing with the principle, pursuing the principle, bringing it back to the House for final approval and allowing it to go to a referendum.

I do not know where the figure of €20 million associated with holding a referendum comes from, and maybe someone can give me some scientific evidence that is the case. I remember that figure was bandied about at the time of the Seanad referendum. It was said that it was nearly more expensive to hold a referendum on keeping the Seanad than to keep the Seanad. Maybe a member of the Government might enlighten me as to the scientific basis for throwing out the figure of €20 million. Maybe holding a combination of referendums, as could be the case in the coming year or two years, would be a lot cheaper. This could be stated also rather than leaving it out in the ether that the figure is €20 million.

I commend those who are party to the Bill and their intentions, goodwill and sentiment which are shared by the rest of us. In the spirit of the previous speakers, I reiterate that there is every opportunity available to us through the various stages that follow to arrive at a consensus and a conclusion whereby we are safe in the knowledge that if it goes to a referendum, it will not lead to guaranteeing of ownership of our forests, Coillte, our bogs, extraction rights or gas pipelines.

We do not want to get into this realm. I assure the Deputy of our support for the Bill and the thrust and sentiment associated with it. We will vote in favour of it.

Deputy Marc MacSharry

I am glad to have an opportunity to make a few points on the Bill. I welcome the legislation and commend those who brought it forward. Notwithstanding the Water Services Acts in place and the safeguards they provide, there is distrust among the public about issues such as the ownership of Irish water and other aspects of public property. Anything we can do to facilitate this is welcome. My colleague mentioned the cost of referendums. I was on the Oireachtas commission at the time of the referendum on the Seanad and I recall a figure of approximately €13 million being discussed as the cost of the referendum. The practice of recent years, given the number of referenda we have, is to pool together certain issues. Deputy Madigan has proposals on divorce she wishes to put forward, and if the legislation on those was passed it would require a referendum and there may be others also. These could be pooled to reduce the cost.

It is not lost on me that the Government, while accepting Second Stage, is facing the reality that it would have lost tonight because we support the Bill. It would also have lost on the amendment tabled last week on Deputy Tony McLoughlin's Bill on fracking. Rather than lose it has chosen to accept Second Stage, with very carefully used language which provides for a potential attempt by the Government to amend the Bill at pre-legislative scrutiny stage or on Committee Stage. With regard to the spirit of introducing pre-legislative scrutiny as a stage in the process, it worries me that it is to undermine the independence of Parliament in trying to bring forward legislation or legislative change. This would be wrong. While there might be very many negatives in some people's eyes regarding the make-up of the current Parliament it has served to give Parliament a little more of an input to the running of the country. In the past, no matter who was in Government, Parliament was merely subservient to the Cabinet of the day but now, because of our numerical situation, it is a little different. I hope that pre-legislative scrutiny will not be abused in a way to undermine the will of the House and the will of the sum of parts of the 158 Members of the House rather than the will of officials and Cabinet Ministers of the day, because this would be very much a retrograde step.

I support the public ownership of our water system. While I appreciate that my colleague, Deputy Cowen, does not want to see forestry and other aspects being pulled in under this, it certainly would not be the intention. Speaking personally, I feel that if we wanted to go back as far as the hydrocarbon legislation which governs our approach to natural resources offshore, we could very usefully revisit this entire area in terms of how we go about realising the value of these resources and their ownership, in terms of us licensing them out and others taking the spoils with additional taxation measures being the only revenue to us. This is something we could revisit.

I would not rule out dealing with the issue of ownership of our forestry and various other resources of the State, speaking from a personal perspective. The parties will have their own positions on this but it is worth looking at these aspects. We all remember what was an opportunity for everybody in Ireland to benefit from the markets with the much promoted flotation of Eircom or Telecom Éireann, or whatever its then name was. Many of us participated in it. With the benefit of hindsight we see the flaws in doing this. We see the disaster it has become and the fact that as a nation which never had a full suite of infrastructure in terms of the utilities to which people are entitled. As things now stand, effectively the people are at the mercy of commercial entities which may or may not decide to provide infrastructure, technology or whatever in a particular area. This is something of which we need to be cognisant.

When governments or states are involved in commercial entities there may at times be an argument to look at public private partnerships or part flotations, but when it comes to key utilities and key natural resources the public is entitled to full and guaranteed ownership of all of these. As a result, I am very supportive of any such measures and I am happy to support the Bill before us this evening.

The cost issue was rightly pointed out by my colleague Deputy Cowen. We could be prudent on this. Following whatever improvements can be made to strengthen the Bill and strengthen the assurance to the members of the public that it is theirs and it can never be taken off them, if a referendum is the outcome it would be positive. Perhaps it could be pooled with some of the other legislative proposals already before the House or about to come before the House so we could consult the people on a number of issues at the same time, thus reducing the cost.

I hope, notwithstanding the Minister's kind words in support of the spirit of the Bill, the pre-legislative scrutiny stage will not be abused in favour of forcing a Government position and will honour the spirit and intentions of the Members of the House who support this today and ensure that ultimately we will see the absolute copper-fastening of the public ownership of the utility.

Deputy Thomas Byrne

I am delighted to be here to support Deputy Joan Collins's Bill and the principle of it. I am very glad Fianna Fáil is supporting it. Two years ago almost to the day, I an my colleague, then Senator Darragh O'Brien, put forward a motion in the Seanad calling on the Government to initiate legislation to provide for a constitutional referendum to enshrine the ownership of Irish Water to the Irish people in perpetuity. At the time, the Labour Party grouping in the Seanad rightly rebelled the Government Whip and joined us. The motion was passed in the Seanad, one of the few times a cross-party motion involving all parties and none managed to be successful in the Seanad. Certainly it did not have a chance in the Dáil at that time. This is the background I come from, this is what I want and this is what I believe in.

Between one thing and another after the motion was passed, the Labour Party, in fairness to it, played a key role and the legislation was tightened. In truth, even without this Bill, and every party here agrees, it would be almost impossible to privatise Irish Water but I agree with the principle of enshrining it in public ownership simply because of that very slight chance that some decision would happen in Dáil Éireann to privatise it. The chances of it politically and practically speaking are almost zero. Even Deputy Collins would probably accept this as we stand. I very much support the principle of the Bill, the principle of holding a referendum and the actuality of holding a referendum on this issue.

Perhaps it was to the surprise of Deputy Collins that we are supporting the Bill. One of the reasons we are supporting it is because we have a record on the issue and we want to continue it and implement it. In her surprise, she changed the debate slightly and is asking us to support the exact wording she has tabled. Her wording is good but I am not happy now with the wording I tabled two years ago because it is slightly wrong. Deputy Darragh O’Brien and I worked on it together, along with Seanad colleagues at the time. The wording I tabled two years ago would have benefitted from wider consultation, even though it was abundantly clear what the principle was. There was absolutely no doubt about the principle of what I was putting forward but when I looked at the wording, and I am a solicitor by profession, I thought I could tweak it. I have not given this wording huge study because we are speaking about the general principle of it, but it would benefit from everybody examining it. Perhaps it will not be improved upon but perhaps it will. We will all have views on it. The Government, the Attorney General, the parties, Deputy Collins, her colleagues and Fianna Fáil will have an opportunity to look at this.

There are issues. For example, Irish Water owns the sewerage system but it is not covered by the wording of the Bill. However, I do not want to stand in the way of a referendum, and I want there to be a referendum on this issue so I come to the debate in that spirit. I am delighted that this has been brought forward but I worry that some people see the issue as an opportunity for conflict, although I do not refer to Deputy Joan Collins in this respect. For the first time ever, the Dáil is coming together to allow this principle to go through in respect of water. Deputy Collins has done us a service by bringing together her thinking and that of colleagues, including myself, and we finally seem to have a point in relation to water on which everyone agrees. Nobody wants to privatise water and we have taken a huge step forward. We have all worked on this and I am glad to have played my role in getting a motion passed in the Seanad two years ago. It will happen and other referendums will have to happen. Deputy Madigan's proposal is probably a no-brainer but it will also have to be looked at carefully. We will probably have a series of referendums on a single day.

Although people probably regard the proposal to retain Irish water in public ownership as a no-brainer, people have contacted me to ask if it enshrines charges in the Constitution. People are suspicious of the entire political system and they ask all sorts of obscure questions whenever, for example, a treaty is put forward at European level. People wonder if there is a hidden agenda in putting this forward and I have had to assure them on Facebook that there is not. Let us work together on this in the spirit in which it was brought forward and in which many of us have worked to promote this idea over a number of years, and let us do it properly. We have seen a Government proposal amended in this Oireachtas, when a flaw was spotted in the process of a constitutional referendum. There was toing and froing in the case of the eighth amendment and I am sure Deputy Joan Collins is not happy with the wording that was agreed. There was a history to it, however, so this has to be done really carefully. Nevertheless, we are supportive of the Bill and of retaining water and the sewerage system in public ownership.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

I thank Deputy Joan Collins and the Independents 4 Change for allowing Private Members' time to be used for this very important Private Members' Bill. I also thank the Minister, Deputy Coveney, for what was a really constructive contribution. Those of us who have brought forward this Bill do so sincerely but we do not think we have all the answers and we are conscious of the fact that others, while they share the intentions of the Bill, have concerns, as the Minister and Fianna Fáil Members outlined. We in Sinn Féin would very much like to take up the offer of the advice and expertise of officials in the Department. We will have an opportunity through the pre-legislative scrutiny and committee process to find the best way to ensure public ownership of water is given the strongest protection possible.

This Bill, which 38 of us signed, is not just the work of a small number of Deputies in this House but is the expression of hundreds of thousands of people in the Right2Water movement. In response to those mobilisations the trade union movement brought together the political pillars of that social movement to engage in a discussion of policy formulation prior to the last general election. The open dialogue that took place among many groups of people who would be in conflict over other issues came up with the Right2Change policy platform, at the centre of which was a set of core policy principles with regard to water: water is a fundamental human right that people should have access to on the basis of need and not on ability to pay; it should not be subject to the profit motive, the free market or commodification; and in order to ensure that every individual and family has access to the water they need for life water, as a natural resource and in its delivery through the water and sanitation system, should be fully retained in public ownership. In addition, the entity delivering the services needs to be fully accountable to the Dáil and, ultimately, to the people. The view of those who have signed this Bill is that constitutional protection is the strongest possible protection that can be provided and we support the Bill on that basis.

There are some people who say we do not need this as there is no intention on the part of the current Government to privatise water services, and the Minister echoed these concerns. However, significant sections of our water services are already undergoing privatisation, and this was as true under previous Administrations as it is today. There are a total of 115 operate, build and design contracts at 232 different sites. The contracts will continue for 15 years and the taxpayer is on the hook for some €1.4 billion, an amount that could increase depending on what happens into the future. That is a concern to many on this side of the House.

There are also people who do not trust the Government on this issue and do not believe it when it states it does not want to privatise services. Even if we accept the Government at its word it does not mean a future Government, with a majority in this House, could not seek to privatise either the resource or the system of delivery. Given all those doubts, constitutional protection is the strongest form of protection.

The Minister also outlined the existing levels of protection, particularly section 2 of the Water Services Act 2014. While Deputy Thomas Byrne is right that this is strong enough legislation, it can be changed - it does not have to be enacted and a majority in a future Oireachtas could remove those protections and proceed to privatise part or all of our water and sanitation services. That is why a constitutional amendment is far stronger and a far better protection.

The other big worry people have is that there is undoubtedly a desire on the part of the European Commission to encourage, to incentivise and, in some cases, to insist on the privatisation of water and sanitation services, as it has done in a number of member states because it believes it is the best way to deliver those services. It does not insist on it until taxpayers and governments substantially invest in the services until they are brought into a position of profitability, and then they can sell them on. Even if future Governments did not want to privatise water, the concerns would remain in the shape of the Commission. I have some sympathy with the people in group water schemes and private well owners but those issues can be adequately teased out in pre-legislative scrutiny and on Committee Stage to the satisfaction of all.

Everybody believes water should remain in public ownership and the view of those of us who signed this Bill is that the strongest possible protection for that objective is to be gained through a constitutional referendum. I will take at their word all Deputies who support or refuse to oppose this Bill today. Let us sit down and engage constructively on Committee Stage to design the best possible constitutional amendment. If we can do it with cross-party and Independent support, all the better. The public will reward us for it and I am very encouraged that nobody who has spoken so far is opposing the Bill.

Deputy Louise O'Reilly

It is welcome that everybody supports the Bill and I thank Deputy Joan Collins for using her Private Members' time to bring it forward.

I will, first, address the fact that there is a fundamental lack of trust in the Government on this issue. Legislation aside, people believe access to water is a fundamental and basic human right and they are reluctant to take at its word a Government that tells us it is committed to the public health service while at the same time channelling taxpayers' money into the National Treatment Purchase Fund. That is privatisation which is not good for public services. I am sure, therefore, that the Minister, Deputy Simon Coveney, will understand why there is a deficit of trust on this issue.

It is welcome that every Member who has contributed to the debate so far has spoken in favour of a constitutional amendment to ensure the strongest possible protection of water services and address the real concerns expressed by citizens in advance of the last general election. There are many Right2Water representatives in the Dáil. We were elected on a number of platforms, one being the protection of water services from what people saw as a real threat of privatisation. They fear the intent was to privatise water services. They rightly have that fear.

It is welcome that the Labour Party supports the Bill. I recall my constituency colleague, Deputy Brendan Ryan, telling me in advance of the general election that there was no need for a constitutional referendum on this issue because the legislation in place was strong enough, a view which I did not support at the time. As I said, it is welcome that the Labour Party is supporting the Bill and that there is cross-party support for it. It is important that we act on it and that we ensure the protection of water services provided for therein is as strong as possible.

Deputy Brian Stanley

I, too, welcome the Thirty-fifth Amendment of the Constitution (Water in Public Ownership) (No. 2) Bill 2016. In 2014 I brought forward the Thirty-fourth amendment of the Constitution Bill, the intention of which was similar to that of this Bill. At the time I asked that a referendum be held on the issue on the same day as the same-sex marriage referendum. The provision of an additional ballot paper on that day would have copperfastened the ownership water services as a public asset.

The biggest concern people have is that water services will be privatised. We all remember what happened to Telecom Eireann, now eir, in the 1980s. It was fattened, modernised with taxpayers' money and sold off by the Government to vulture capitalists. The rest is history. We lost control of that service and do not want the same to happen to Irish Water. Two years ago, when I tried to have my Bill introduced and passed through this House, the then deputy leader of the Labour Party and Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Alan Kelly, told me that it was not needed and that the legislation in place would not be changed because none of the other parties in the Dáil at the time wanted that to happen. From what has happened in the United States, we know that things can change overnight. Insertion of a clause into the Constitution is the only way to guarantee water services will not be privatised. We do not want to see happen here what is happening in Detroit with water services or in parts of Britain where private companies are charging poor households sky-rocketing prices for water. The Bill is a step in the right direction.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The next slot is being shared by Deputies Bríd Smith and Ruth Coppinger.

Deputy Bríd Smith

Tá an-áthas ar an AAA-PBP tacaíocht a thabhairt don Bhille seo a bhaineann le príobháidiú uisce. This is a good Bill. It is essential and flows naturally from the mass movement we have seen in the past few years in response to water charges as conducted by this and the previous Government. I believe the Bill will be passed. My understanding is that Fianna Fáil and the Labour Party support it. I also heard positive mutterings earlier from the Minister, Deputy Simon Coveney, which indicates that there is a good chance the Bill will be passed, which I welcome.

In 2013, at the launch of the Right2Water campaign, we heard contributions from invited speakers from France and Germany who were members of citizens' movements which at the time, in Germany, were struggling to invoke the re-municipalisation of water services in Hamburg and Munich and, in France, had achieved it in Paris. Control not only of the provision of water services but also the management and supply of water is a fundamental issue because, as has been said many times, one can live without food for many days but not without water for very long. Water is central to life. More than 90% of every living organism is made up of water. Water is hugely impacted on by climate change and the industrialisation so-called civilisation has been wreaking on the planet. This is an issue that should be addressed in the context of a wider approach to how we deal with our natural resources.

This attempt to stop water services from being privatised is crucial. We all know what happened when other countries privatised water services, including in Britain. When Margaret Thatcher privatised the supply of water in the 1980s, there were outbreaks of serious illnesses across Yorkshire and on the outskirts of London. Following the privatisation by South Africa of its water services, TB was rampant. While there have been outbreaks of cryptosporidium here and other poisons have been found in the water supply, it is clear that such outbreaks become a much greater and intractable problem when services are in private hands.

While I do not wish to open old wounds, I would like to focus a little on the make-up of the commission on water charges. The commission comprises many prominent individuals from private water companies in different parts of the world, including Mr. Bill Emery, director of Ofwat, which is presiding over a privatised water system. It is a real tragedy and a shame that there is not one representative of the Right2Water movement in the commission, a movement which brought out hundreds of thousands of people many times to march, protest and organise at a local level against water charges and the privatisation of Irish Water, a movement that has seen the vast majority of the population engage in what is probably the biggest boycott since the insertion of the word "landlord" into the English language in the 18th century. It is a shame that the Right2Water movement is not represented properly in the commission.

This legislation is only the beginning. We have a way to go because, following the passage of the Bill, a referendum will have to be held. This is the continuation of the ongoing fight to retain public services in public ownership. Far from it being the end of the story, it may only be the beginning. We do not want water services to be in the hands of global vulture corporations. They belong to the people. We hope the model to be brought forward will spread throughout the globe and be adopted by other societies.

Deputy Ruth Coppinger

The Anti-Austerity Alliance supports the concept of retention of water services in public ownership and the Bill. We heard it said last year in the Dáil and the year before when the issue of water charges was being debated that nobody in this House had ever intended to privatise or supported the idea of privatisation of water services. It is clear that the intention of Fianna Fáil and the troika, carried on by Fine Gael and the Labour Party, was to privatise Irish Water. We first saw the installation of meters, at a cost of hundreds of millions of euro, to charge for water usage. This was followed by the introduction of charges, which is always a precursor to the sale of any commodity, and the establishment of Irish Water, with its bonuses, directors, CEOs and so on. What else was it but a model for privatisation?

The previous Government would not agree to what is being proposed in the Bill. The furthest it went was to agree to holding a plebiscite which would not have the same scope as a referendum. Any Government or entity that believes in privatised health care would privatise water services. A Government that believes people should pay to be well would have no qualms about charging for water.

We support the Bill because of there is a bigger picture. This Bill would not stop water charges being reintroduced or remaining because one could still charge for water within the framework of a public water company. Some countries have that. Indeed, there were some trade union leaders who supported water charges and favoured the likes of this Bill. In fact, we were told on the radio today that Mr. Jack O'Connor led a revolution for this Bill. Mr. O'Connor was completely out of the movement against the water charges. Some of them introduced this to distract from the central issue of water being charged for. Water charges have been sunk for only one reason and that is the non-payment and protest movement against them two years ago. It was a protest movement on a local scale and a national basis. The ongoing advocacy of non-payment was critical to making the charging of water unviable. One cannot privatise something that is not paying for itself. Financially and politically, the charges were made unviable by that very important call from some people within the anti-water charges movement.

It is funny that Fianna Fáil is willing to support this Bill but was unwilling to support a motion that would abolish water charges. I wonder why. This is the most basic issue they must be seen by their voters to support. I say to Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, the Labour Party and the Independents who support water charges that they will try to reintroduce them at their peril. Good luck with it if they do.

Deputy Jan O'Sullivan

This is a positive debate in so far as there is general agreement. The Labour Party supports fully the retention of water services in public ownership and is absolutely opposed to the privatisation of the public water service. The Minister has said that in the last Government we put forward two Bills, one in 2013 and one in 2014, to ensure that a plebiscite would be required for any Government in future to privatise the service. That was strong legislation, but clearly there is still a distrust. A couple of people who have spoken already have talked about the distrust of Governments and politics. We have seen plenty of that in the last couple of days in the American election and, indeed, in Britain as well in regard to Brexit. We recognise that there is a doubt in the public mind that the water infrastructure will be kept in public ownership.

The Minister referred to the fact that there have been three pieces of legislation already on this, but the Labour Party has proposed a Bill through my colleague, Deputy Willie Penrose, which goes beyond water to cover the electricity and gas transmission and distribution networks as well as the public water supply and waste water treatment services. The Bill provides that all those services shall be maintained in public ownership. We published the Bill some time ago. We believe that the provision must extend to other networks, including gas and electricity because we saw the Eircom debacle, which was a lesson to all of us that we need to ensure that we protect our public infrastructure with regard to vital services. We have some concerns about the Bill before the House, one of which is that waste water treatment services are not specifically referred to in the Bill. Having said that, we absolutely support the spirit of the proposal and welcome the fact that it will go to pre-legislative scrutiny and that there is an offer of the services of the Department in terms of addressing the issues that may arise in terms of having an appropriate Bill to put before the people in a constitutional referendum.

In the last few days, Irish Water has put out a proposal on the Dublin water supply. More than half of those who have spoken in the Chamber on this debate live in the Dublin area. One of the reasons for setting up a central utility for water, which the Labour Party supports because the service is so important, was to deal with leakage but also the fact that the greater Dublin area is going to run out of water. It has less than 2% spare capacity whereas any capital city ought to have 10% to 15% spare capacity. I strike one note of caution although I note the matter will go to public consultation. There is real concern in the mid-west at how removing water at the Parteen basin from the River Shannon and its tributaries and lakes might affect the environment in the mid-west in particular but also further north. Those concerns must be taken on board in terms of the consultation. While there is a real concern and need to do something about the Dublin water supply, if this proposal is implemented, any decision to release water and store it for Dublin should be made in the mid-west region and not in Dublin. In other words, Dublin should not be able to take water whenever it wants it. It should be released whenever there is an excess capacity within the Shannon and its tributaries and lakes. I wanted to put that on the record because I have not heard anybody talk about it in the context of the debate.

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

From the outset of the whole debate on water, I have said we should have a referendum. It would have put a lot of things into perspective. Billions of euro have been spent putting the infrastructure into the ground. Having said that, I still claim that we need one authority over water for the simple reason that multiple authorities have not worked down through the years. It is not popular to say, but I have seen in my area that problems and upgrades are addressed much more quickly than they ever were before.

People must remember that we can talk about water as long as we want, but at the end of the day the regulations relating to water are growing in number. Various regulations are coming out from Europe and they are harder to meet and result in higher costs. It comes from the sky and goes into a lake or river but when one has to treat it, it costs money. The one thing I do not condone is wasting water. In this whole debate on water, the group water schemes throughout the country have been completely forgotten. If something is being done on water, those people must be protected. They do this on a completely voluntary basis in those areas nationally where people pay for a certain amount of their water. Local people in local communities do a great deal of work but their money was cut. The subvention needs to be restored and the infrastructure must be protected.

Taking water from the River Shannon is being mooted. As with wind, gas or electricity generation, there is no problem providing water for every part of the country. It is not something we are putting our hands around and minding. However, investment should be made in return in those areas from which resources are being taken. Let the following be clear to every politician in the House, given the projected cost if bringing water to Dublin of €600 million to €700 million. Given the amount of infrastructure needed around the country, whether it is within budgets or in a charge, we must face the fact that €3 billion to €4 billion must be invested in our water infrastructure over the next number of years. Politicians need to address that situation and get real about it.

Deputy Michael Harty

I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate.

The wording of the Bill states: "The State recognises the right of all people to safe, adequate and accessible water, and will protect that right and ensure its management, treatment and distribution remains in public ownership." I fully agree with these sentiments in the Bill and believe they should be added to the Constitution. Water is critical for all life, and clean, accessible and readily available water is essential for any modern society. It should not be a commodity which is for sale on the open market. That does not mean that clean and freely accessible water should be taken for granted. Water requirements for our people now and into the future need to be respected, appreciated and protected by the Government.

Retaining water services in public ownership is essential and the Bill will guarantee this, should it or another Bill be successfully incorporated into our Constitution. Water is an essential resource and, luckily, it is freely available in Ireland. It should be metered and its usage measured. A generous volume should be provided free of charge, but excessive use should have a cost. This will encourage conservation and realistic use of our water.

Care must be taken to ensure that public ownership of water is placed in our Constitution in a clear, unambiguous and comprehensive manner. We need to be sure that whatever is inserted into our Constitution does what is intended to do. The debate on Irish Water has been heated and, for many reasons, often confrontational over the past nine months. By ensuring that water in Ireland is constitutionally protected from privatisation we will take some of the confrontation out of future debates, which is to be welcomed. It is only through calm, rational debate that the best outcome for our water management structures will be reached.

Deputy Mattie McGrath

I am delighted to speak on the Bill. I compliment Deputy Collins on bringing it forward. I wish to declare an interest. Part of a business in which I am involved does some work for Irish Water.

In 2013 I introduced a Private Members' Bill, the Water Services (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, to amend the Water Services Act 2013. It sought to make provision for Irish Water to be fully subject to freedom of information legislation, which it is not but must be. It also sought the creation of a dedicated independent ombudsperson to resolve the disputes, which are many and varied, relating to Irish Water. Such a change must be made. The most important aspect of the Bill was to make provision for Irish Water to be a fully public owned entity which would be prohibited from entering into a public private partnership. We know where such an approach has led us in many cases. While I support such initiatives for road building or whatever, I do not support them for such a valuable resource and asset as water. I would still like to see those objectives achieved and that is why I will support the Bill.

Our water supply must be protected with the firmest possible guarantees. A constitutional amendment to protect the water supply is best suited to achieving this goal. I opposed, with all my might, the construct of Irish Water developed by the former Ministers Phil Hogan and Deputy Alan Kelly. An entity should look after water, but Irish Water was too big and the process was too rushed. The wrong people were appointed to the board and they lacked expertise. Why were people involved in group water schemes not included? The volunteers about which Deputy Fitzmaurice spoke should have been included. When I was in school I saw people digging with shovels and machines, laying pipes, finding sources and maintaining water services, something which continues to this day. Such people have been lost in the debate. Farmers and householders have problems with wells being polluted. Who will support them?

I am disappointed there is no reference to health in the Bill. Each person should be entitled to a certain amount of water per day for sanitation and human consumption for free. In order to avoid waste any water consumed above that level should be metered and charged for. That system makes sense to everyone.

There are people in the country who do not have water. As a buachaill óg I remember drawing water with a horse and cart. I am not, as someone described me here some time ago, a Neanderthal. I am 58 years of age and drew water from rivers to cattle with a horse and cart, buckets, barrels and everything else. It was hard work. It is a wonderful resource to be able to turn on a tap and have a water supply available.

Councils have been dismissed as if they never did anything. They had water sources, treatment plants and good caretakers to look after the major task of providing water. One could ring them when there was a break in service. People contacted us and we were able to get it sorted. Now we have a monstrosity that is not fit for purpose. It is a case of jobs for the boys and is bungling from one issue to another.

There will be a battle in Tipperary, Offaly and other places to take water from the Shannon to Dublin. Water is required for Dublin, but it should get its house in order and fix the 40% or 50% of water that is wasted underground through leaks. That is reprehensible and unacceptable. Why would a decision be made to plough up the middle of the country and destroy perfectly good farms near houses through the use of blunt instruments such as compulsory purchase orders in order to lay pipes? I have no problem with infrastructure being provided, but I have a problem with water being taken to places that will not stop wasting it. The same applies to all houses.

It cost €590 million to fit meters. They are wasted underground and will never be used. People should be encouraged to fit meters in their houses near electricity meters or somewhere they can be read in order to assess the level of water they are using and whether they have leaks. There should be a carrot-and-stick approach to encourage people not to waste water. It is a valuable resource - I will not call it a commodity because it is not. We are entitled to water, but it is not an infinite resource. It has to be collected, treated and pumped using pressure, and services must be provided and maintained. There must be some encouragement to stop people wasting water.

A former water caretaker in Fethard, County Tipperary calls me on a weekly basis. People are abusing him because a leak has been happening on his private property since last Christmas and we cannot get Irish Water to fix it, at a time when we are talking about encouraging water conservation. Thousands of gallons are being lost through leaks every week. Irish Water has such high levels of bureaucracy that one cannot get anybody to fix leaks. Householders are not home and waste is going on in front of people's eyes, beside a shop. They see the waste on a daily basis, while at the same time we are trying to encourage them to save water and mind a valuable resource. The system is farcical in the extreme. Irish Water needs a lot of housekeeping and reorganisation.

As I said, we need a lot of soul searching and respect for landowners and householders in Tipperary, Offaly and other counties through which a pipeline will be laid. We need the issue to be dealt with sensitively and not to have the bullying approach of Irish Water. We had such an approach from the former Ministers Phil Hogan and Deputy Alan Kelly. I accept the Minister and his colleague are sensible and understanding and hope they will accept the Bill and enshrine in legislation that Irish Water can never be privatised.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

I wish to share time with Deputies Seamus Healy and Eamon Ryan.

The issue of water has dominated the political agenda for the past number of years, not just because of the injustice of the charge and how it was couched but because of the very dishonest way it was implemented. I have said repeatedly in the House that this is not just about water. There are many reasons for the unrest. One of the major issues was the view that there was a group of people that appeared to be a golden circle and benefitted from the hardship imposed on ordinary citizens.

At the heart of that view was a mistrust of the Government. For example, there are still unanswered questions about the water meters contract. The ongoing Cregan investigation into Siteserv is a case in point. We have only recently learned that there will not be an interim report and the earliest report we will receive is the final report in December next year.

The fear that some very powerful individuals may be waiting in the long grass for the opportunity to gain control of any entity responsible for water in this country is very real. People have feared that from the word go. I am sure we can recall the Irish Water marketing strategy and a certain individual who constantly referred to us as customers. Essentially, people felt they were being turned from citizens into customers and an entitlement or right was being turned into a commodity.

A fudge is not enough. People need to know that their water supply, that most fundamental of requirements, will not at any stage in the future find its way into the hands of a golden circle which is privy to comfortable deals and inside tracks. Reassuring people that water will forever more remain in public ownership is a demand that the Government cannot and should not ignore.

I note the Bill is not being opposed.

However, we need to have a clear commitment that this will not end up buried in a committee and that there will be a referendum. People will be very angry if this is a way of massaging the situation and moving it into a space where the Government does not have to deal with it. That is critically important.

Deputy Seamus Healy

As a long-time member of the Right2Water campaign and as a Right2Change candidate in the last general election, I confirm my support for this Bill to stop the privatisation of our water. The Bill is the result of people power. It shows that when we stand together we can and will be successful. I thank everyone who marched and mobilised as well as those who put pressure on their local Deputies, those who opposed Irish Water meter installers in their towns and villages and those who refused to pay the unfair double taxation that were water charges. We would not have got this far without them. I have a word of caution, however. We must be wary of any attempt by the main political parties - Fine Gael, Fianna Fáil and indeed the Labour Party - to amend the wording of this Bill or to water it down or to long-finger the Bill and put off the referendum. This legislation is crucially important. It will maintain water in public ownership and prevent privatisation. There remain two vitally important issues that we need not to lose sight of and must work on: the abolition of domestic water charges for good and the abolition of Irish Water. People power and the Right2Water campaigners throughout the country will be successful on these issues as well.

Deputy Eamon Ryan

On behalf of the Green Party, I welcome this Bill and look forward to a referendum to enshrine in our Constitution that our water would be held in public ownership. This is a fundamental issue for our future. Water is a precious natural resource and we must look after it. We have a responsibility to use it wisely. A fundamentally important aspect to the necessary new approach to the management of the resource is to have it stated in our Constitution that it is our water supply and that it is not a commercial product and never can be. I commend Deputy Collins on proposing the Bill and am glad that other parties are signing up to it. The initial Right2Water campaign across Europe centred on the issue of who owns our public water supply and how it is viewed. Is it to be viewed as a basic right or as a commercial product? We see it as a basic right. People should get a basic allowance for free to meet their everyday needs. Water should be measured and its use monitored and there should be a charge for wasteful use. This has to start from first principles and there should be a referendum guaranteeing public ownership of water. This is an important first step. I look forward to the referendum. The debate we will have at that time may help us come to terms with the issue of water. We would be taking responsibility for it and putting it into our Constitution that it is our resource to use as we see fit.

Deputy Stephen S. Donnelly

I support the Bill proposed by Deputy Collins. It is welcome that it is not being opposed and that it is being supported by Fianna Fáil. I think there is cross-party agreement that the water system should remain in public ownership and that it is a strategic asset. The argument put forward by the last Government when many of us pushed for this was that it would never privatise the water system. I agree. I do not think the current Government would privatise it. However, as the events of last night show, sometimes we do not know who will be running a country. Unexpected people may end up running countries and they may have very different views to those of the current Government. It is not just a matter of trusting the current Government.

Ideally, we would not use the Constitution for this sort of specific issue. For example, the ESB is not protected in the Constitution. However, water has a unique position as a result of the level of public opposition to the charges and the genuine fear of privatisation as well as foreign meddling in domestic affairs. The then president of the ECB, Jean-Claude Trichet, wrote to the late Brian Lenihan in the context of Ireland's bailout and stipulated that there was to be two structural reforms. One was that we would charge for domestic water use. It is extraordinary that any central banker would do that, but it is telling of the foreign meddling in Ireland's water supply and how we govern and pay for it. In this case, therefore, we need fully, permanently and totally to protect the public ownership of the Irish water system via an amendment to the Constitution.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Tá an Teachta Catherine Connolly ag roinnt a cuid ama leis an Teachta Thomas P. Broughan.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan

I thank the House for the opportunity to speak briefly on my colleague Deputy Collins’ important Private Members' Bill, the Thirty-fifth Amendment of the Constitution (Water in Public Ownership) (No. 2) Bill 2016. I warmly congratulate Deputy Collins on her great perseverance and determination in bringing forward the Bill to ensure that the national water supply and infrastructure will remain forever, as the amendment would provide, in public ownership and management. Deputy Collins was a leading candidate who stood on the Right2Change platform in the February general election. A key commitment of that platform, supported outstandingly by the Mandate and Unite trade unions, was to abolish water taxes and ensure through a referendum that our water services infrastructure remains always in the ownership of the Irish people. I am proud to stand beside Deputy Collins on the Right2Change programme and am delighted that her Bill to amend the Constitution will, hopefully, be accepted by Dáil Éireann this week.

As a Right2Change elected representative, I have always strongly opposed water taxes and charges. I have supported the Right2Water campaign since it sprung from our communities. The people-powered Right2Water campaign against water charges and taxes is powerfully based in my constituency of Dublin Bay North. Valiant campaign groups throughout Dublin Bay North, such as Ayrfield Says No, Edenmore Says No, Clare Hall Says No and Raheny, Darndale and Coolock Say No, led the struggle against metering and the refusal to accept water taxes on already hard-pressed households. Hopefully, the final abolition of those taxes will be given a huge boost by the adoption here today of the Thirty-fifth Amendment of the Constitution (Water in Public Ownership) (No. 2) Bill 2016.

Many of us here, including some so-called Independent members of Government, were elected by the people on an anti-water charges platform. I have never heard any of our 158 Deputies express a desire to privatise water though many have been complicit by setting up the structures, in particular Irish Water itself, and allowing it to become more possible via the establishment of that national company and the installation of meters.

I am aware that the expert commission on domestic public water services is said to be currently examining the future funding models for water provision and the commission is due to present to the special Oireachtas committee by the end of this month. However, the work of the commission is only another exercise in kicking the can down the road, which is so typical of this minority Government. Its terms of reference are restrictive and unclear. In reality, it is another device to frustrate the will of the people so clearly expressed in the general election, which is that they want water taxes on households abolished and our water services infrastructure retained forever in public ownership.

Deputy Collins’s Bill amending article 28 of the Constitution is a simple yet important Bill. The Bill would allow us to put the question to the people via a referendum on whether or not they want to protect and maintain our national water supply infrastructure, a vital natural resource, in public ownership and management and whether or not they want us to ensure that future generations will not have to worry about water being turned into a commodity and privatised. There seems absolutely no reason for any Member of the House to vote against such a modest yet critical proposal. The electorate will overwhelmingly vote in favour of keeping water in public ownership once this Bill progresses through the Oireachtas and we have the referendum. Even the small number of those who were not opposed to water charges would be opposed to the possibility of our water becoming a commodity and a cost for households. A poll earlier this week by journal.ie showed how profoundly opposed the Irish people are to any privatisation of our public water system.

Privatisation of water services in many countries has been a total disaster. The Thatcher era saw water being privatised in the UK in 1989, a move that has produced ongoing problems and controversy. When such a vital resource is commodified, it leads to cut-offs for non-payment, a practice the English had to bring to an end with the introduction of legislation in the 1990s, as well as increasing prices and tariffs and massively growing profits. In the UK, water charges increased nearly 50% in real terms in the first decade of privatisation.

In the same period, the operating profits of companies such as Anglia Water, which did some work for Dublin City Council and other local authorities, and Scottish Water increased by nearly 150%. Above all, investment suffered following privatisation. The so-called water regulator in Britain, OFWAT, has been severely criticised, especially for allowing the United Kingdom's sewer network to be run down without investment in refurbishment. As The Guardian newspaper reported last year, there has been a strong kickback against privatisation of water, not only in OECD countries but across the world from Buenos Aires to Berlin.

Since the disastrous privatisation of water in other jurisdictions includes public private partnerships, management and lease contracts, it is important that Deputy Joan Collins's constitutional amendment includes a reference to "the protection, management and maintenance of the public water system" and that all of these elements of the national water system remain in public ownership and public management.

I commend my colleague, Deputy Joan Collins, on bringing this important Bill before the House. I am pleased to support it and welcome that it is unlikely to be opposed by the Government or the Fianna Fáil Party. I urge the Government to ensure it passes as soon as possible.

Deputy Catherine Connolly

Tá sé tábhachtach anois tacaíocht a thabhairt don phrionsabal go mbeidh an Rialtas go léir freagrach as an gcóras uisce poiblí agus go bhfanfaidh an acmhainn seo faoi úinéireacht phoiblí agus faoi bhainistíocht phoiblí. I am delighted to have an opportunity to contribute to this debate. I pay tribute to my colleague, Deputy Joan Collins, whom I am proud to sit beside. The Deputy has pushed legislation and brought it before the Dáil, and she appears to have secured cross-party support for it. I note, however, that when I expressed delight some weeks ago about the passing of Second Stage of legislation on fracking, I was accused by some of being innocent on the basis that the Bill would be buried. We will not allow the anti-fracking Bill or this constitutional amendment Bill to be buried.

We all lived through the recent general election when the three main issues raised were housing, health and water. As I have stated repeatedly in the Chamber, I am tired of people on the right accusing those of us who offer a different vision and different approaches of being negative. I have never been negative and have put forward positive solutions, as Deputy Joan Collins has done in this Bill. The Deputy is responding to the movement on the ground which begged us to lead and show a way forward. That movement was not negative either, although it has been described as being against water charges and so forth. My experience of people on the ground is that they are begging the Government to lead and create a society in which they can participate.

If anything is to be learned from last night's presidential election in the United States, it is the utter failure of the Democratic Party to analyse the reasons people were turning against the system in their millions and towards a man who should not have been supported. The message that came across during the recent general election here was that the Government was completely out of touch with people on the ground. Members of the public asked us to provide services in return for their taxes.

The Government takes a patronising attitude that people need to be punished if they are to conserve water. I have cited previously a pilot project in Galway which demonstrated that people did not need to be punished to encourage recycling. Those involved in the project recycled up to 70% of waste and diverted 56% on a weekly basis from landfill. They did so without any sanctions or reward but simply because they wanted to participate in recycling for the good of the environment. Similarly, most people I know want to conserve water. The Government cynically provided and subsequently withdrew a €100 conservation grant. I have asked what measures the Dáil has taken to show leadership on water conservation. For example, what positive programme has been rolled out to tap into the people's energy and desire to conserve water?

I live in Galway city and for 17 years as a local councillor, I observed the water system being starved of funds. Despite a 40% leakage rate, funding was not provided to address the problem. I do not, therefore, subscribe to the mantra that we did nothing because we repeatedly asked for funding to deal with problems locally and it was repeatedly refused.

Throughout this debate, people have feared that water services would be privatised. We heard weasel words from the Government and politicians that water would not be privatised. We are calling the Government's bluff by asking it to support the Bill. It has indicated it will do so but this support must extend to ensuring the passage of all Stages of this simple Bill to amend the Constitution in order that water remains in public ownership.

In 2010, the United Nations declared water a human right. It seems that we often know the price of everything and the value of nothing, as was evident in the absence of proper debate on water and water conservation. I proudly support the Bill.

Minister of State at the Department of Housing, Planning, Community and Local Government (Deputy Damien English)

I thank speakers from all sides who participated in this debate. This has been a positive, passionate and engaging discussion on an important issue.

I reiterate the point made by the Minister that we do not doubt the sincerity of Opposition Deputies, including Deputy Joan Collins, in seeking a constitutional amendment to protect public ownership of the public water system. While the Government is not opposing the Bill at this Stage, due to the complexities of the issue and proposed wording of the amendment, I stress again the need for careful consideration of its contents following this debate. The Minister outlined some of the complexities involved in amending the Constitution to recognise public ownership of the public water system. We do not typically enshrine policies on infrastructure and State bodies below the fundamental pillars of the State, namely, the Executive, Judiciary and Oireachtas, in the Constitution. To do so would be novel and we must, therefore, tread carefully in respect of any proposal to hold a referendum.

The legislative provisions currently in place ensure public ownership of the national water system into the future. I am not aware of any political party or Member of either House who does not want public ownership of the water system to be maintained. As I indicated previously, the Government remains open to considering any workable proposals which could further reassure members of the public that our approach to the public ownership of Irish Water and its assets will not be changed.

As I stated, I accept Deputy Joan Collins's sincerity in introducing the Bill. Having listened to Deputy Stephen Donnelly and others both inside and outside the Dáil, however, it appears they do not realise that legislation is in place to prevent any Government from privatising Irish Water. Deputy Collins is aware of this because she has done her homework on this issue but other Deputies do not seem to realise that legislation is already in place.

Deputy Donnelly referred to the United States presidential election and the possibility of a Government being elected which no one had foreseen. If a Government landed out of the sky tonight, it could not privatise Irish Water without consulting citizens in a plebiscite because this is provided for in legislation. While most of the Deputies present are aware of this, I am surprised Deputy Donnelly and many other Deputies are not aware of it because it is clearly stated in law. It is for this reason that the Government has indicated it is not sure whether the Bill is necessary.

Water issues remain contentious and highly political. While I accept the sincerity of the views expressed by Opposition Deputies and understand that public concerns persist about the future ownership of water infrastructure, it should not be lost on the House that the Opposition has invested more effort in a proposal to protect ownership of the public water system than it has on proposals to improve the public water system and water services for citizens.

Deputy Catherine Connolly referred to a waste recycling project in Galway city and made a number of good suggestions in that regard. However, apart from a great deal of discussion and aggro, Deputies have made few proposals on water conservation.

The Government produced an ambitious strategy - perhaps it was over-ambitious in the context of the timescale involved - to establish a single national utility to achieve a national approach to water services delivery and infrastructure provision. We established economic regulation of the utility with the result that Irish Water's expenditure and budgets are being independently scrutinised and efficiencies and improvements achieved. This strategy has produced a funding model designed to end the old approach of providing extra investment in good times and inadequate funding during less favourable times. We need a funding model that provides continuous, increased and sustainable funding of the public water system to put an end to the unacceptably high leakage levels. At present, 47% of all water produced is lost in leaks, nearly 40,000 people were subject to boil-water notices last year, 45 urban areas have raw sewage discharged straight into water bodies and some 830,000 people are dependent on some 115 water supplies that are in need of remedial action.

Yet the Government has received little support from across the House in addressing these issues through putting the national utility in place, implementing a regulatory framework that ensures service improvements and efficiencies, introducing a legislative framework that provides for the long-term infrastructural service delivery planning and devising a financial model in which there is direct link between use and funding of a service.

We do hear, however, complaints about Irish Water, along with wild statements about the metering programme and Irish water operations. I have listened to endless condemnation of water charges. The catch-all statement of providing more investment through direct taxation has never been matched with any detail about how this is to be achieved. In the Seanad, I have asked for views on Irish Water’s 25-year strategic plan, its business plan to 2021 or its capital investment programme. I have asked repeatedly for Members in both Houses to read those plans and to give us their thoughts on them. However, I never get them. I heard speeches again tonight from Members who do not realise what the law states about the ownership of the utility. For the months ahead, will Members take time to read some of these plans and examine the results of Irish Water? It is fine if they do not agree with them but we should tease them out. Not reading them does not help debate in this House.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The order of the House is that the debate has to conclude in two hours. I want to give nine minutes to the Bill’s proposers. Will the Minister of State watch the clock for another minute, please?

Deputy Damien English

Yes, I will conclude shortly.

Did the House hear Opposition contributions welcoming Irish Water's work in ending long-term boil water notices for some 18,000 people last year? Did it hear praise for its improvements to water supplies which posed contamination risk for 220,000 people? Was there any mention of the 48.5 million litres of water, the equivalent to the daily water needs of 450,000 homes, saved through Irish Water's first-fix repair scheme by the end of the first quarter of this year? This is usually met by silence by those decrying the high level of leakage in the system. Neither do I recall much endorsement of Irish Water's work in trying to reduce exposure to lead in drinking water pipes, including its work on informing 34,000 households of likely lead piping in their homes.

After the commission publishes its report this month, it will go to committee. When it returns to the House in the spring, can we debate the facts? I have no problem with genuine opposition. However, facts are facts. Can we recognise where there have been some improvements? The full information must be entered into the debate, not just this aggro, total opposition and blindness to some of the good results achieved by Irish Water over the past several years. All I am asking for is a fair and logical debate over the months ahead.

Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan

This Bill is about a single aspect of a much wider debate. It is important we keep separate the single issue of the ownership of water from the wider water charges debate. There are concerns about the ownership of water. The 1916 Proclamation declared "the right of the people of Ireland to the ownership of Ireland and to the unfettered control of Irish destinies, to be sovereign and indefeasible". To me, that says our resources are owned by the people for the people. Equally, the Democratic Programme, passed by the First Dáil, stated "sovereignty extends not only to all men and women of the Nation, but to all its material possessions, the Nation's soil and all its resources". In other words, the sovereignty of the people extends over the natural resources of the country, which also includes water.

We know there are many problems relating to water such as boil water notices, leaks, poor pipe network, problems with sewage, insufficient supply at times, not to mention the overabundance we saw last winter. These are part of the bigger debate with charges. This is a simple Bill on ownership. Ownership of resources, like water, is part of the wider agenda on economic, social, cultural rights. The Constitutional Convention, of which I was a member, voted in favour of holding a referendum on the strengthening of economic, social and cultural rights, which includes water.

Many international commentators are astonished the privatisation aspect has had so little debate here. There are examples of disastrous consequences on communities abroad where water was privatised. In Britain, more than one in five live in water poverty, as a result of the British selling off their water supply in the 1980s. A report from the Transnational Institute research unit reported many countries and cities have remunicipalised their water systems over the past ten years. It stated problems of private water management, from lack of infrastructure investments to tariff hikes to environmental hazards, have persuaded municipal authorities to go back to public ownership. It pointed out that co-operation between public services has been the most efficient way of improving water services and promoting the human right to water.

This Bill’s narrow remit is simple and straightforward. I accept there are issues regarding ownership relating to group water schemes and for farms and families who have their own water supplies. These can all be debated on Committee Stage. It is positive the Bill will go to Committee Stage.

Tá sé tábhachtach anois tacaíocht a thabhairt don phrionsabal go mbeidh an Rialtas go léir freagrach as an gcóras uisce poiblí agus go bhfanfaidh an acmhainn seo faoi úinéireacht phoiblí agus faoi bhainistíocht phoiblí.

Privatisation just does not work. It means corporate profits at the expense of people. It means raised prices, denial of access to water to those who cannot pay and reductions in the workforce. There are countries where privatisation has not worked. Since the millennium development goals were announced, 768 million people still lack access to clean drinking water, 2.5 billion people are without safe sanitation and 3.5 million people die annually from water-related diseases. The contributing factor to this has been privatisation and not leaving water in public ownership. I acknowledge the work Irish Aid does with its water programmes which are in the control of communities.

The test is, are we committed to keeping water in public ownership? I do not believe legislation is enough on its own. Governments and legislation can change. We need to look at a constitutional aspect of the right to water. I acknowledge the work Deputy Joan Collins has done in keeping this issue alive and in bringing this Bill to the House today.

Deputy Joan Collins

I thank Deputies and parties for their support of this Bill. It is an important Bill which has been reflected by the Minister offering pre-legislative access to it. I will not put down red lines yet. However, we need to progress this quickly and not see it buried in the legislative process. Under the new politics arrangement, ten weeks are given for Committee Stage. I would like that timeframe to be kept to as close as possible with this Bill.

Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan made the point that Governments and legislation can come and go. A Government could be elected at the next election with a huge majority, like the previous one, and change existing water ownership legislation without any recourse to the people or Opposition Deputies. Multinationals and wealthy people do not come and go. Instead, they plan for ten, 20 and 30 years down the line about where they want to make their money, where they are going to invest and what governments will open their markets to access public services. That is their plan and we know that. None of us is an idiot in that respect. There is a real and crucial need to put public ownership and management of our water supply into our Constitution. If Ireland had water meters and charges in place when the troika came in, it would have forced us to privatise our water supply, like it has done in Greece and Portugal. Putting this into our Constitution protects us from this and states we will not accept such a move.

Then the debate can come out of this because people do not trust this Government or the EU, as reflected in the Brexit vote. It is down to the whole idea of being told what to do. People are fearful of this. We need to protect essential public services. This is the first step to that. I would welcome if all Members got stuck into this and developed the best legislation out of it. Article 28 should be amended to make this and successive Governments responsible for the maintenance of the water supply and vindicate the right of the people to have access to treated water.

No one has a problem with there being one entity. That is not the issue; people just do not believe Irish Water will stay in public ownership and they believe it will be privatised. It is set up to be privatised.

I thank the Deputies for their support. The management part is key. If any entity is to be set up, the Government must be responsible for overseeing it. It is really important that it not end up like Aer Lingus, for example. The Government had a certain share in the airline but this was sold off in the interest of somebody else. All of a sudden we had no public airline in Dublin.

Let me make one point on the pipeline from the Shannon. This issue has been arising for a while. I do not know how much it will cost. It could cost millions or billions to bring a pipeline from the Shannon to Dublin to serve the greater Dublin region. I have continuously raised in the Dáil a point that seems to have fallen on deaf ears. If the money were spent on fixing the 35% of pipes in the ground that are carrying treated water, it would go a long way towards sending water to taps rather than into the ground. If we retrofitted all our homes and businesses to ensure treated water would not be going down our toilet bowls and that rainwater and water from other types of systems would be used, we would save millions of litres of treated water. These are the issues we must debate. Rather than taking a resource from the people along the Shannon, the prospect of which inspires fear among them, we should fix the leaks where they happen and retrofit all our homes. We should use the money to do this rather than to address other aspects.

I look forward to Committee and Remaining Stages and to the Bill passing through the Seanad and coming back to the Dáil. We will have what I propose because people are demanding it.

Cuireadh agus aontaíodh an cheist.

Question put and agreed to.