Jim Daly (Cork South West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

To take up the issue raised by Deputy Eoin Ó Broin, it is an indisputable fact that constitutional protection is stronger than legislative protection. I do not know anyone who has posited a case to the contrary.

I thank Mr. Ó Tuathail for his presentation. Tá brón orm mar gheall ar na deacrachtaí a bhain leis an aistriúchán. One of Mr. Ó Tuathail's statements brings us to the nub of the issue. Nobody is arguing that we are in favour of privatisation. What we are wondering is whether a referendum is necessary. We must be clear that this is the focus of the debate. Mr. Ó Tuathail has stated privatisation of water provision "poses a serious threat to access and quality." This explains the reason so many submissions were made on this issue. While I accept that people fear privatisation, in my humble opinion statements such as this generated this fear which has been blown up and made more real than is necessary. The opposite of this statement is that the public ownership of water protects access and quality, which is not the case. Thousands of my constituents do not have access to water and its public ownership does not guarantee supply. We should ask people in Galway who had to put up with cryptosporidium for their view on the issue. They will tell us that public ownership of water does not guarantee quality. Let us be honest - there is an element of fear stoking and remarks such as Mr. Ó Tuathail's on privatisation go to the heart of it.

If it is argued that the reason for holding a referendum is precedent, what will be next? Mr. Ó Tuathail statement that access to water is essential to public health is very interesting. Does he believe any other entity or commodity is essential to public health and should, therefore, be afforded constitutional protection? For example, should we have a referendum to guarantee that the health service cannot be farmed out to private ownership? Should we then have one to prevent education from being farmed out to private ownership and guarantee access to education? The blood transfusion service is a life-giving service that is essential to public health. Should we also hold a referendum to guarantee it would remain in public hands? My point is whether this will become an endless exercise in which the State inserts guarantees on everything in the Constitution or whether Mr. Ó Tuathail regards water as unique and considers that no other service, commodity or entity has the same standing.

If a referendum were to be held, I do not know if there would be a "No" side. Who would argue in favour of privatisation? There is an onus to provide for a balanced debate. In that case, while I acknowledge a few people would be tempted to do so, who would populate the airwaves to provide for a 50:50 balance and argue in favour of privatising water services? The referendum would be nonsensical and completely one-sided because there would not be a debate. Those who want a referendum to be held and hope people will become exercised about the issue would be engaged in a self-defeating exercise because no such debate would take place. I wonder how this would play out.

Would a referendum have a knock-on effect, positive or negative, on the thousands of my constituents who do not have a public water supply? They would be extremely bored during the referendum campaign because it would be irrelevant to the one third of the population who do not have their wastewater collected whether the water service was publicly or privately owned. Would a referendum have a knock-on effect for them?