Victor Boyhan (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minster for coming before the committee and acknowledge the work involved. There are 38 signatories to this Bill, which is interesting. I took the time to consult the Official Report of Wednesday, 9 November 2016, including the deliberations on what the Minister had to say, as well as what Deputy Joan Collins and other colleagues said. That is more or less what we have heard again here today. I accept exactly what Deputy Ó Broin has said. The Minister's response is more or less the same thing as was said back on 9 November 2016 - in some cases it is exactly word for word. That is the reality of it.

While I am open to correction, this is effectively about copper-fastening the ownership of water services. In her statement, Deputy Joan Collins spoke about retaining Irish Water in public ownership and stressed the need for public management of the utility. I would totally disagree with her on that point. I do not think we should get hung up on Irish Water's day-to-day operations.

I reiterate that this Bill in no way seeks to abolish Irish Water, despite the personal or political views of all the signatories. I met someone outside the gates of Leinster House earlier today who was talking about the abolition of Irish Water. I told him members would be talking here today but there is no question in Deputy Collins's proposal concerning the abolition of Irish Water. The Deputy has advocated strongly against Irish Water but in this Bill there is no proposal to abolish the company. That interesting and important point is worth making.

Why should we all get hung up on the public management of a structure? A range of public utility services are contracted out to the private sector. If it is the best way to do it and is value for money it should be pursued. We should not get hung up on a political dogma or view that we have trotted out time after time that somehow State agencies or the State itself should be doing everything. It is about value for the customer and the public generally. We are really interested in having a top-quality service, not in the consistency of a political message.

The Minister has clearly set out the issues. We all know the technicalities involved in having a constitutional amendment. We should forget about the cost of having a constitutional referendum because while that is a consideration, it is not the most important one. As regards the wording, what are we trying to achieve? Let us not get hung up on the process. I do not think anyone is against copper-fastening the ownership of Irish Water as a service and a public asset. We need to separate those two.

I understand that the Minister cannot share the Attorney General's advice with the committee at this point, but clearly he has an idea where all of this is hopefully going. We are meant to be scrutinising legislation, so it would be helpful to know that view. Can the Minister flag any concerns, such as the unintended consequences? Can that be teased out? Clearly, this has been coming down the tracks for many months and the Minister's officials and others have been advising him. There are legal and technical issues involved. I would like to hear what the Minister has to say about these key issues.

In the Dáil debate, Deputy Wallace stated "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." I do not know what that is all about. We want a top-quality service for the public. We should not get hung up on ownership. Some people have set a political position whereby they want to get rid of Irish Water, so they throw everything at it but it does not wash with me. It does not make for good policy, not to mention good politics.

The Minister has outlined that in 2014 the Government had introduced further safeguards in respect of the Water Services Act 2014. While I am happy about it, I would like it to be teased out. The Minister referred to the triple-lock system and that eventually there would have to be a plebiscite, and he could not alienate his shares other than to another Minister or a part of Government. Because the whole thing is so complex, people need to understand the certainty of the triple-lock system. There has been a huge debate over this but people on all sides are trying to clarify it and keep it all simple.

Everyone, including the Minister, now agrees that Irish Water is an asset that needs to be safeguarded by the public. How can we keep that simple and assure people that it will happen? If there was a change of government in future with a vast majority, there would be some comfort in that it could not change or be unwound in some way. There is the issue of protecting it. I will leave it at that but there are critical issues involved. As the wording of a referendum is a complex issue, how does that process work itself out?