Mick Barry (Cork North Central, Solidarity) | Oireachtas source

I noted the Taoiseach's comments when he was asked about the Bill. He made a case against progressing with it on the grounds that it was not urgent and no longer necessary. That is interesting because he did not argue against the Bill on legal or technical grounds but on political grounds. Is he right? Is it no longer urgent or necessary? Then and only then must the technical issues be considered. That is my party's view on the issue.

People can shout from the rooftops, but a privatisation agenda was clearly part and parcel of the debate on the introduction of water charges. Has that agenda gone away?

Regarding a move towards having a single utility in the form of Irish Water, the plan was for it to be completed by 2025. The current proposal is for it to be completed by 2021. In my party's view, the move towards a single utility would facilitate a privatisation agenda. Without drilling down too far into it, the move to a single utility, plus the service level agreements, would not result in changes to the wages, conditions and pensions of current staff and the unions are sufficiently strong to guarantee this. The question is about what would happen to new hires. When Mr. Jerry Grant of Irish Water appeared before us a few weeks ago, he did not rule out - not by a long shot - Irish Water being in a situation where new hires would be on lower wages and reduced conditions and pensions. Time and again in recent years in State and semi-State companies, that type of scenario has facilitated a privatisation agenda. A company does not opt for compulsory redundancies, but it lets time take its course and the company applies pressure in various ways such that there are fewer and fewer staff on the older and higher wage levels and more new staff on the lower levels. That makes the company more attractive to those in the private sector who wish to own and control it.

A process which does not ipso facto lead to privatisation but can greatly facilitate privatisation is being speeded up, and the 2025 deadline has now become 2021. I and many other people who marched and campaigned during the water charges movement suspect that what the water charges movement has achieved is the defeat of a short-term agenda of moving towards privatisation and that now, for those in the establishment who support it, it has become more of a medium-term aim. Is the idea of an anti-privatisation, keep water in public ownership Bill or referendum still something which still has relevance? Our political conclusion is that it is absolutely relevant. There are legal and technical issues. No Bill is perfect. However, if there are legal and technical issues we should let the Bill proceed to the next Stage and table amendments, which are debated and teased out, and the Bill is honed and sharpened to the point where it is watertight, if the committee will excuse the pun. We then proceed on that basis.

I am wary of the argument that suggests that the entity is kept in public ownership and therefore there is no need to have that copper-fastened by way of a referendum. There are ways in which an entity can be kept in public ownership but, through design-build-operate, outsourcing or contracting, we are led to a situation where large elements of the system are privatised. That is not a sufficient bulwark against privatisation. I am wary of those who clearly had a privatisation agenda yesterday, who got knocked back by the anti-water charge movement and who are arguing for that arrangement today. They say it is a bulwark against privatisation but it could actually help to facilitate it.

I believe there is a need for a Bill and a referendum. If technical issues arise they can be sorted out via the normal mechanism, which is amendments at the next Stage.