Joan Collins (Dublin South Central, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to debate this Bill. It is important there is clarity around the issues concerned. The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights did not include water because it was not envisaged 70 years ago that private companies would be set up to run water services. In 2010, 122 countries agreed that water sanitation is a fundamental human right. That was a very important declaration after two decades of people raising the issue. In contrast, in 2012 the European Commission issued a letter stating:

Privatisation of public companies contributes to the reduction of public debt, as well as to the reduction of subsidies, other transfers or state guarantees to state-owned enterprises. It also has the potential of increasing the efficiency of companies and, by extension, the competitiveness of the economy as a whole, while attracting foreign direct investment.

The Commission believes that [the privatisation of public utilities, including water supply firms] can deliver benefits to the society when carefully made.

As long as the European Commission believes that water provision would be privatised the potential exists for that to happen. Also, there is the potential that a strong arm of a troika would force countries into privatisation of their water services. I take on board the Minister's point that the Government, and the parties to it, do not want to privatise Irish water services. That may be the case now but it may not remain so into the future, which is the concern of the public. The only way we can protect water services provision is to provide in Article 28 of the Constitution that public ownership of it be the responsibility of the Government of the day.

I wonder if some people have read the Bill. It is very simple. It provides that the Government shall be collectively responsible for the protection, management and maintenance of the public water system and that it shall ensure, in the public interest, that this resource remains in public ownership and management. It does not mention what entity shall do that. There has been nothing concrete forthcoming from the Department regarding group water schemes, private wells and so on. The senior counsel, Séamus Ó Tuathail, who participated in this morning's session of the meeting, has vast experience in terms of public-private ownership legislation and law and so on. I would like to make a few points for the record. Private wells are protected under private ownership. Group water schemes are set up as private companies. To become a public company they have to apply to the local authority and go through a particular process.

Therefore, they are protected and it is clear that they are not part of the public water system, under which they receive subsidies. The only aspect of group water systems governed through regulations is the requirement introduced by the European Union that governments must ensure public water systems reach a certain standard, are of good quality and well delivered. There is no impact on group water schemes, bore holes and so forth.

It is a pity that a few individuals were not present this morning when it emerged that obsolete assets were not part of the public water system and could be sold off to raise revenue. If the Department is concerned that group water schemes are not private and may be public, it should inform them of that concern. It is clear from the structure and operation of group water schemes that they are private and separate from the public water system. This issue needs to be clarified because it is used to muddy the waters when we hear about unintended consequences.

The Department and Irish Water should draw up an inventory of assets owned by local authorities. I understand the local authorities are checking what assets they have. It is only a matter of providing a record for the Government to ensure it is aware of what assets are in public ownership. I ask for a response on that issue. The Department should indicate whether it has concerns in that regard and if there are no such concerns, it should make a clear statement that there is no problem. That would allow us to move on because the waters are being muddied in this area.