Fergus O'Dowd (Louth, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister. From a theoretical point of view, this is the first time I have participated when it is not a Minister but a Member who is introducing the legislation. That is unusual and welcome. In fairness, this is the proper process for the people who have introduced the legislation. The Minister made it clear that he is listening. He or his officials have met with the proposers of the legislation. I do not know if I am the only person who has seen it but he states in his official submission, "My officials are working with the Office of the Attorney General on the issues arising, in order to provide advice to me and the Government, as this Bill progresses through the Oireachtas, and possibly on bringing forward some amendments to address some of the issues I have outlined." The Minister is being reasonable. He is listening, is in touch with the Attorney General and he is working on the wording. If he came here and said the opposite, such as that he did not agree with a certain line and that he proposes this, that or the other, people would make the charge that he was interfering with the due process or was not giving due weight to the analysis of the issue. The Minister has been clear that he will refer back to us on Committee Stage. He is not opposing the legislation. As I understand it, nobody opposes the principle.

I have some questions, although I do not expect the Minister to be able to answer them immediately. I have a concern about Ervia, which is the holding company for Irish Water. I introduced the original legislation in the first instance and the express intention at the time was that Irish Water, after its initial support from Bord Gáis, would be a stand-alone, separate company. That is not the case. I argued strongly and trenchantly for that view, although it did not prevail with the political people involved in the decision-making at the time. It was a bad decision to have it as part of Ervia. I would like it to become a separate company. I realise that the latter is not an issue for the Bill we are discussing. As Mr. Ó Tuathail said, it is a matter for the Dáil, not a referendum. However, it is exceptionally clear to me that Irish Water should have no hand, act or involvement with Ervia.

On my next question, many of these assets are very important and valuable. Irish Water will have to raise funds and it will have to go to the private sector to get them. It might be the case that a piece of infrastructure could be provided by a private company. This happens at present, whereby a company might design, build and operate, DBO, water infrastructure. Irish Water would work with it on that. Are there any implications for that process or would it be neutral in its impact? The officials can correct me if I am wrong but I understand that the supply of water to a significant part of Limerick city was built and is operated by a private company. It is efficiently run and well managed. It operates under the direction of Irish Water and does what it is told. Would there be any issues in that regard?

My main point is about the principle of public ownership. I introduced the initial legislation. I debated the issue of public ownership with the Department and it was to be included in the legislation. When the legislation was presented to me, however, it was not included. I was very concerned about that and people were right to be concerned about it being in public ownership. This referendum is essential for that reason. At the same time, I wish to know the implications, if any, for the future operation of Irish Water, particularly in respect of design, build and operate, DBO, mechanisms and investment. There are many legitimate funds, such as teachers' pension funds and so forth, that are seeking investment in infrastructure such as water. That is a good thing if it is not exploitative investment. It is long-term, low-interest investment in a solid and unique structure.