Ruth Coppinger (Dublin West, Solidarity) | Oireachtas source

I obviously support the Bill and happily signed it. There has been huge concern in the opposition to water charges that the final intention was to privatise water. It is not an idle concern; it is an obvious one. It happened with bin services that once charges were introduced, the services were eventually privatised. When we had these debates in the Dáil it was said that nobody in the House wanted to privatise water but I do not believe that. Many Deputies would not have a fundamental or principled opposition to water being privatised and that is why people want a constitutional provision to prevent any political party from doing that in future.

In fact it is backed up by what Senator Boyhan just said in his contribution. He said that we should not get hung up on political dogma about things being State-run or privately run; it is about value for the customer. I do not want to be a customer for water, however. I just want to have water that is paid for through central taxation. I do not want to become a customer and get a bill. Those words were used by Senator Boyhan. He was basically saying that he would not have a principled opposition to water being privatised but that is why people want to see a referendum. As we will be having other referendums, there should not be a problem in incorporating a referendum on this matter.

As regards the Minister's concerns, everybody is asking the same thing. We need to hear a bit more detail about these concerns and why it could be problematic. One issue being raised is that because of the diversity of water structures - approximately 15% of people are in group water schemes - it is being presented that such people would have a problem if it went into public ownership. I would like to talk to some of those group water schemes to see if that is the case. That was stated in one of the documents. I think that a lot of those group water schemes should be brought into public ownership. There is a basis for doing that and it could protect people from facing exorbitant fees and costs in the future.

It seems that every time we want to have change - be it in housing, compulsory purchase orders for land or anything else - it is cited time and again that the constitutional right to private property could be impinged upon. This argument is now being posed again in respect of water. We seriously need to change that article in the Constitution and to downgrade the right to private property because it would seem that we cannot protect the common good otherwise, or at least it is always cited that way.

We have had countless presentations here on housing.

That is deliberately overused by parties that do not wish to see any constitutional change or public ownership being advanced and enhanced. It is incumbent on the Minister to give us the legal advice or to indicate what impediments he believes there might be to proceeding with this. There is huge public support for it. We were all led to believe that when it was agreed at the Joint Committee on the Future Funding of Domestic Water Services, it would be taken as read that it would be enacted.