Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister. I will start by saying that I found the presentation we got from the Department and the Minister's opening statement very disappointing because they do not say an awful lot more than what was said on Second Stage. In fact, the bulk of what the Minister has stated was said during the Second Stage debate in November, almost six months ago. The purpose of this meeting, as I understand it, is for us to engage in detailed scrutiny of the actual legislation but the one thing the Minister did not talk about was the legislation. I am genuinely not trying to score a political point here but that was the whole purpose of us inviting the Minister to appear. If I remember correctly, during the Second Stage debate one of the Minister's final comments was that he would provide the expertise of his officials to the committee to tease this out by way of pre-legislative scrutiny. What we are seeking to do today is to get into the detail of this. I am hoping that in the course of our question-and-answer sessions we will start to deal with the actual legislation, which is what we are here to deal with.

On page 6 of the more detailed submission prepared by departmental officials, the two sets of general concerns that the Department has with this Bill are outlined. The submission says that the wording of any constitutional amendment seeking to enshrine public ownership of the public water system "may" be problematic, given various issues. Do the officials believe or does the Department have legal advice to say that Deputy Joan Collins' Bill is problematic? Is it or is it not problematic? It could be that the Department does not have advice from the Attorney General on that and the Minister cannot tell us now. Is it problematic or not, based on the legal advice or the policy expertise that the Minister has available to him?

The aforementioned document goes on to say that seeking to enshrine such property in public ownership through a constitutional referendum could have unintended consequences and could impinge on individuals' constitutional rights. Again, this committee wants to know if, on the basis of the legal advice that the Minister has on this legislation and the policy expertise available to him, this Bill would rather than could have unintended consequences. That is what we are trying to grapple with here.

I am also concerned that, on foot of his remarks, the Minister seems to think that there may be a confusion between publicly and privately-owned assets. We already have constitutional protection for private assets and this Bill seeks to provide constitutional protection for publicly-owned assets. Is it the Minister's fear that if this referendum were to pass, assets which today are privately owned under law could somehow be dragged into the public system against the will or the legal rights and entitlements of the owners? If that is what the Minister believes, I ask him to explain how he thinks that could happen - given the constitutional protection for private assets - and to provide concrete examples. We had senior counsel in this morning and we asked them if they believed that there could be any impingement on the rights of private asset owners as a result of this legislation and they said "No", categorically.

At the end of his opening statement, the Minister raised the issue of partnerships, which is not referred to in the documents supplied to the committee by the Department. Obviously, we are dealing with design, build and operate models for the delivery, for example, of water treatment plants and other such public private partnerships. Whatever our individual policy views, it is an important issue that the Minister raises.

We again asked senior counsel this morning if, for example, this referendum on the constitutional amendment was to be passed and enacted, whether it would in any way affect the current operation of design, build and operate treatment plants. The senior counsel categorically has said "No".

I believe it was Deputy Cowen who asked would it or could it affect the ability of a service provider - whether it is Irish Water or some other entity - acting on behalf of the State to enter into such arrangements in the future. My understanding of the answer is that it would not. The issue is that there needs to be clear public ownership and governance of the water system. I do not want to know if the Minister has a general fear but is there something specific he is being advised about? If so, can he give us the detail if it is contrary to what we have already got?

I take it from the last paragraph of the Minister's presentation that he does not have the Attorney General's advice on Deputy Joan Collins's Bill at this stage. The Minister should confirm whether he has that advice. If and when he does have it, however, the committee would like to know. We understand that he cannot share the legal advice but on previous occasions he has given the committee a detailed oral summary of that advice. If he does not have the advice at this stage, will he give a commitment to provide it to us at a later stage?