I welcome everybody to the Select Committee on Housing, Local government and Heritage. The meeting today is convened to consider the Committee Stage of the Water Services (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill 2022. I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Malcolm Noonan and his officials to the committee. We will commence our consideration of the Bill.
Water Services (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill 2022: Committee Stage
Sections 1 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.
NEW SECTION
I move amendment No.1:
In page 6, between lines 15 and 16, to insert the following:
“Referendum on the Right to Water
5. The Minister shall, not later than 6 months after the passage of this Act, lay a report before the Oireachtas Committee that—
(a) proposes the wording for a referendum on the public ownership of water infrastructure,
(b) sets out a timeline for the referendum,
(c) sets out in detail all other key considerations.”.
This amendment, if accepted, will mean that the Minister, no later than six months after the passage of this Bill will lay a report before the Oireachtas committee on a proposed wording for a referendum on the public ownership of water infrastructure, to set out a timeline for a referendum, and to set out in detail any other considerations.
For quite some time the Government has been saying that the matter of a referendum is under consideration. This Government and Oireachtas is approximately halfway through its full term, so I believe the time for this matter to be under consideration is coming to a close and we need to know what the timeline is and when this will happen.
This amendment seeks to do that and I will go through some of the reasons I think that is very important, but I believe it would be useful if the Minister of State were able to give us an update. Is this matter still under consideration or does the Government now have a timeline as to when this referendum is likely to happen and when will we hear more about it? What are the Ministers of State’s thoughts in that regard?
On the substantive issue of water, its supply and the importance of it being in public ownership, we have seen around the world in the past number of years 235 different places where water went into private ownership and has been brought back into public ownership because the privatisation was so disastrous. Two of the high profile areas we would be aware of are Berlin and Paris.
In Paris, for example, over 24 years of privatisation the price of water increased by 174%. While the profits of the owner soared, the amount of public investment in the infrastructure did not justify that. That is one of the reasons water was brought back into public ownership. Bringing water back into public ownership is a very costly exercise because this infrastructure has often been privatised at a low cost and brought back in to public ownership at a very high cost to the Exchequer or to the people.
In Berlin the privatisation of water was nothing short of a disaster. It led to very significant deficits in investment in water infrastructure, which is something that we could not afford here. I am aware that the present Government has no intention whatsoever to privatise water. This is very important, however, where we as a committee are always talking about housing and the infrastructure needed around housing. While there are very significant deficits in that at present, privatisation would make that even worse again. As a fundamental issue in respect of people’s access to this resource, with the exception of air, there is nothing we need access to more for human life, for business, for farms, for companies, for industry and for everything, than water.
It is of crucial importance and the reassurance that a referendum on this will be held, putting it into the Constitution, and enshrining that public right and ownership, would be a very positive step. That is what this amendment is seeking to do in progressing that. If the Minister of State is able to give us a definitive update on what is going to happen with a referendum, then I will be happy to withdraw the amendment.
I will just bring in Deputy Gould to speak now, please, as he wishes to make a comment on this amendment.
I support Deputy O’Callaghan in this amendment. We fought a long campaign to prevent water being privatised. Some hundreds of thousands of people came on to the street. This issue does not seem to be on the Government’s agenda but there is still a concern there among people I speak to that until we have the referendum and until right to water issue is enshrined in the Constitution, a Government at some future stage might try to revisit this issue and privatise water and the water infrastructure in this State. That is why we need a commitment and a timeline from the Government to know that this will not happen. With the cost of living, in housing and in health; these are the number one issues. There is still a fear factor there in the back of people’s minds, however, about this privatisation agenda which Fine Gael has driven for the past 12 years.
I would appreciate, therefore, if the Minister of State could give that commitment because at least people would know then and it would help to ease their minds because at this moment in time, this issue is still a serious concern for many people.
I thank Deputy Gould and invite Deputy O’Donoghue to speak.
I want to refer to the comments of the two previous speakers which were on the privatisation of water. I have a letter here from SIPTU and its members where in Limerick alone, the county council wants 70 of their water and water treatment system workers to transfer to Irish Water. We are talking here about not privatising water yet this transfer has to be done by 2026. This represents 70 of the local authority workers who are working in the water services who are being told at the moment that they are not being forced but are being asked to change over to Irish Water, and that the county council wants this framework done by 2026. It appears to me that the Government is looking at privatising our water system completely where it is bringing over local authority workers from their local authority work to Irish Water. In the absence of a collective agreement or of a rejection of the framework document, some are advocating that the Government would be enabled to implement section 19 of the Water Services (No. 2) Act 2013, which provides for compulsory transfer of a number of matters to Irish Water.
Can I ask Deputy O’Donoghue to please stick to Deputy O’Callaghan’s amendment, which relates to a referendum?
This is part of the privatisation of the water. I would like to hear the Minister of State’s comments which may show that the Government in the back of its head is looking at privatising our water system.
I thank Deputies for their contributions and Deputy Cian O'Callaghan for the proposed amendment. I agree with the comments made. I have seen in other countries where privatisation has been brought in, either through IMF interventions or structural adjustment programmes, that it has been detrimental. That is not on the cards here. I give that assurance. There is also a commitment to a referendum in the programme for Government.
The amendment concerns the wording and timeline for a referendum on the public ownership of water infrastructure. While I welcome and share the support shown by the Deputy for a referendum on ownership, the amendment suggested is outside the scope of this Bill and cannot therefore be accepted.
As the Deputy will recall, the 2017 report of the Joint Committee on Future Funding of Domestic Water Services supported the holding of a referendum, subject to there being no adverse impact on private and group water services. In response, and in the context of a Private Members’ Bill introduced in the previous Dáil, extensive work has been undertaken by the Department and the Office of the Attorney General to consider possible approaches to advancing a referendum proposal. An approach based on protecting the public ownership of the entity established under law to provide public water services, Irish Water, has been identified as the most appropriate and straightforward approach. Having consulted his colleagues in Government on the matter, the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage, Deputy Darragh O’Brien, has signalled his willingness to support a referendum on public ownership along these lines.
An important consideration in planning for a successful referendum is the need to ensure proper public engagement. Noting that the Commission on Housing has been specifically tasked with advising the Government on a referendum to place the right to housing in the Constitution, it would make sense that the constitutional issues around the rights to housing and the protection for the supply of public water should be considered at the same time. The Department will therefore bring its proposals on a water referendum to Government in conjunction with any anticipated referendum on housing.
It is understood that the Commission on Housing hopes to be in a position to put forward proposed wording for a referendum on housing towards the end of this year or very early in the New Year. This approach has been outlined to unions on the referendum, on which I note the points made by Deputy O'Donoghue, in the context of the broader engagement on water sector transformation. The position is set out in a paper entitled Water Sector Transformation: the Wider Policy Context, which the Department shared with the Irish Congress of Trade Unions on 18 July 2022 and which the Minister has now placed in the Oireachtas Library for the benefit of Members generally.
I am afraid I cannot accept this amendment. I assure members that it is the Government's intention to proceed with the referendum on water in tandem with the referendum on housing.
As the Minister of State said, we had a report in 2017 report and we have a commitment to a referendum in the programme for Government. It is now five years since the report was published and more than five years since most people felt this matter had been settled and consensus was achieved on the need for a referendum to provide assurance in the Constitution that our water infrastructure would stay in public ownership. However, we are still left without a referendum.
The Minister of State made the relevant point that what has happened in some other countries has not always been driven by governments but has sometimes been driven by the IMF or external bodies. I do not believe and I certainly hope that we will not be in such a situation any time soon but we never know what will happen. We need protections in the Constitution, as otherwise economic turmoil or spillover from the disastrous situation in the UK at the moment could lead to a Government being told that, whether it likes it or not, privatisation must go ahead. If we had a provision in the Constitution, that would be off the table. The IMF or anyone else could say whatever it wanted but the Constitution would provide full protection and we would not have to worry about the issue. That is one reason that, notwithstanding the fair amount of political consensus on this issue at the moment, having this provided in the Constitution is a good idea.
It is positive that the Minister of State reiterated the point about holding a referendum at the same time as a referendum on housing but we do not have a date or timeline for the latter either. My concern is that we are halfway through this Government and we never know what could happen. If the Government were to end early due to unforeseen circumstances and these referendums are not held, the matter is then on the plate of the next Government. The failure of the Government to give a firm time commitment is the reason I am concerned. Unless the Minister of State can give us a timeline for the referendum, I will press the amendment.
I cannot give a timeline. The intention is to have the wording ready for the end of this year or early 2023. That would put the commission in place and it would then get moving on a timeline for a referendum and referendum campaign.
Uisce Éireann will remain in public ownership so a referendum aside, the programme for Government includes a commitment that Irish Water will be retained in public ownership as a national, stand-alone, regulated utility. However, I fully appreciate the assurance Deputy O'Callaghan has spoken about with regard to having that enshrined in the Constitution as an added safeguard. It is important from my perspective and that of the Government that the referendum take place.
The Green Party fully supports a referendum on water. Is the wording for the referendums on water and housing being done in tandem? Will they be run at the same time?
That is the intention. It is always tricky running two referendums on the same day. I will not say they are similar issues but I know there will be considerable public engagement on both. I cannot anticipate what the wording will be on the housing referendum specifically but it is important, as Deputy O'Callaghan said, that we try to move as quickly as possible with this.
The Minister of State indicated that it is the Government's intention that Irish Water would stay in public ownership. Why is it asking water service staff to move from the local authorities to Irish Water and lose their status as public servants? If Irish Water is in public ownership should these staff not be seconded?
Those are operational issues for Irish Water. The assurances have been given in the transformation process. It is not obligatory. Staff can move into Irish Water and stay in local authorities.
Their public status would be lost if they move.
No, that will not-----
Under the current system, it would.
I ask Deputy Ó Broin to be brief.
I will probably repeat a little of what has been said. One of the concerns that many of us have is that in the second document that emerged from the Workplace Relations Commission discussions, which is directly related to this legislation and to Deputy Cian O'Callaghan's Bill, there is no commitment to hold a referendum. To be clear, we have a commitment from the Minister to consider, at a future date, bringing a proposal to the Government. Does the Minister of State know if there is consensus among the Government parties that if such a proposition was brought, there would be agreement? We are waiting for the Commission on Housing to report and we understand it will report in November. We understand it is highly likely to recommend a referendum on the right to housing in the Constitution. However, we also know from this committee that while a majority of members are on record as supporting such a measure, Fine Gael members, as is their right, currently do not support such a proposition, although that may change. I am not asking about Cabinet because it is governed by Cabinet confidentiality, but is the Minister of State aware of any consensus among the three parties in government that a referendum to enshrine in the Constitution the public ownership of our public water system or utility would be a good thing? I ask because there is considerable concern among water service workers regarding the single utility. One of the points many of these workers make is that if there was a constitutional protection for the public status of the utility, and this speaks directly to Deputy O'Donoghue's question, the decision of whether they transfer to Irish Water would be a much easier one for them to make. Therefore, some clarity on where the Government parties stand would be really helpful on this.
Both this and the issue of the transformation process are outside the scope of the Bill.
They are directly related. The Minister of State will accept that.
I accept that. However, there is a commitment to proceed with a referendum and I am giving that commitment today on behalf of the Government.
Just to clarify that, the Minister of State said there is a commitment to proceed with a referendum.
There has been no decision of Government to proceed with a referendum. Does the Minister of State mean there is a commitment by the Minister to bring forward a proposition to Government or is he saying that the Government has decided in principle to proceed with this?
There has been agreement by the Minister to bring forward a proposition. Again, as I said, the wording is being worked on in regard to the housing referendum and, similarly, in parallel with that, wording will be worked on in terms of what shape the referendum on water will take. In that regard, I am not anticipating how or when that is brought to Government. My assurance here today to the members is that it is our intention, towards the end of this year or early next year, to have the wording ready for consideration.
I call Deputy O'Callaghan to give the last word as it is his amendment.
Just so I am clear, the situation is that when there is a proposed wording, that then goes to the Cabinet and to Government. It is at that point that a decision is formally made on whether to proceed to a referendum, and either outcome is possible. The Cabinet and the Government will be within their rights to decide collectively that they do not want to go with that wording and not have a referendum. What we know now is that the wording on a referendum is being worked on and that will be brought to Cabinet. We do not have a specific timeline on that and we do not know how the Cabinet or the Government will decide on that because no one can tell. Do I understand the current process correctly?
That is how it works in government. I give the assurance that the wording is currently being worked on in regard to a housing referendum, as was committed to. We would anticipate that both referenda would take place on the same day. That is our intention.
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 4; Níl, 6.
Tá
- Gould, Thomas.
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- O'Donoghue, Richard.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
Níl
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Flaherty, Joe.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
- Noonan, Malcolm.
- Richmond, Neale.
Amendment declared lost.
Section 5 agreed to.
Sections 6 to 15, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 16
Question proposed: "That section 16 stand part of the Bill."
Section 16 provides that Uisce Éireann, also to be known as Irish Water, will be accountable to the Committee of Public Accounts. The heightened levels of accountability and transparency applying to Uisce Éireann are commensurate with the level of Exchequer funding of the company. This policy change has a consequential impact on another statutory body tasked with an oversight role with respect to Uisce Éireann, namely, the Water Advisory Body. There will be a duplication between the Committee of Public Accounts and the Water Advisory Body as both consider transparency and accountability matters relating to Uisce Éireann. The Minister, Deputy Darragh O'Brien, considers that it is in the best interests of the Oireachtas and Uisce Éireann that there is a clear line of accountability for Uisce Éireann, and that the Committee of Public Accounts is the appropriate body that should be solely tasked with this role. This sole accountability role for the Committee of Public Accounts will obviate the need for the Water Advisory Body. The Minister, Deputy O'Brien, is giving urgent consideration to the accountability arrangements in light of the role of the Committee of Public Accounts and will consult further with Government colleagues on this matter. Any amendment necessary would be relevant to the provision, scope and principles of the Bill. The Minister considers that any change to the Water Advisory Body will not diminish the individual statutory roles of the three bodies currently represented on the Water Advisory Body, namely, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Commission for Regulation of Utilities and An Fóram Uisce. Any decision would not change their individual relationship with the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Housing, Local Government and Heritage. The Minister acknowledges that it is open to the joint committee to request all three bodies and Uisce Éireann to appear before it on matters relating to Uisce Éireann.
My initial reaction to the information provided by the Minister of State is to urge a note of caution. The Committee of Public Accounts has a specific legal and constitutional responsibility. Although it does not exclusively focus on the issue of the use of public money, that is its primary responsibility. The Water Forum is a much broader body, which has a range of different opinions and views on it. I am unsure whether having a level of statutory accountability to both bodies necessarily involves duplication or conflicts. Has this been discussed with the Water Advisory Board? Has its opinion been sought? If it has not, I urge the Department to seek its opinion before any amendment is brought forward. If there has been consultation with the Water Advisory Board, I would like the committee to have sight of the view of the board on the matter. If the Department is not going to do that in advance of any amendment that may be tabled by the Minister, particularly keeping in mind that it might be a late stage amendment on Report Stage and in light of the significant information the Minister of State has just outlined, the Chairman should share that information with the Water Advisory Board and seek its view on the matter for the committee. Obviously, we cannot prejudge an amendment we have not seen, but what has been outlined by the Minister of State would be a significant change from the Bill as it stands.
I am just flagging the matter. I am not proposing an amendment.
I understand that.
I wanted to flag the matter with members. It is only correct that the committee would have sight of the view of the Water Advisory Board. We are trying to ensure there is a clear line of accountability through the Committee of Public Accounts. I think that is the correct approach. Obviously, there is also oversight through the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Housing, Local Government and Heritage. I wanted to flag the matter with members. We will seek the views of the Water Advisory Board and have it appear before the joint committee in that regard.
If the Minister of State provides the committee with a copy of his note on the matter, we will discuss it at the meeting of the joint committee next Tuesday. I am conscious that our Senator members are not present. I thank the Minister.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 17 to 30, inclusive, agreed to.
SCHEDULE
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 20, to delete lines 10 to 14 and substitute the following:
"
|
2. |
No. 39 of 1997 |
Taxes Consolidation Act 1997 |
Schedule 13 is amended by the insertion of the following paragraph: “210. Uisce Éireann.” |
"
The amendment corrects the placement of Uisce Éireann in Schedule 13 of the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997. When the Bill was initiated, Uisce Éireann was placed at No. 206 in Schedule 13 as that was the next available number at the time. The Revenue Commissioners has advised the Department that Uisce Éireann should be placed at No. 210. This is because Nos. 206 and 207 were allocated to bodies that will be established on foot of the recently enacted Institutional Burials Act 2022 and Electoral Reform Act 2022, and Nos. 208 and 209 have been allocated to bodies that will be added to Schedule 13 by the finance Bill.
Amendment agreed to.
Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendment.