Eoghan Murphy (Dublin Bay South, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputies for those contributions. I say to Deputy Barry that there is no other agenda here. When the Taoiseach made his comments he would of course have been speaking to the spirit of the Bill and not the legal text that is before us now, as we are speaking about a Bill that brings about a referendum to amend the Constitution in a very specific way. We must focus on that legal text and what the implications might be from that text if it were to be inserted in the Constitution.

I agree that there are more urgent referendums that need to take place. I am thankful that as a result of a decision of the Dáil yesterday, we hope one of those referendums will be taking place very shortly. It is good that it is happening. Most people will rightly agree that the Bill taken yesterday is more urgent than this one. There is no privatisation agenda or proof thereof. It is important to ask, even in the absence of constitutional protection, how the public water system could be privatised, given the triple-lock that is in place. There are huge barriers currently in place that again inform how urgent this Bill or referendum might be versus others that many people in the Dáil want to see. There is lengthy list of them.

Moving to a single authority or utility allows us to have a more efficient response both in terms of financially deploying resources and also in times of crisis. We saw with storms Ophelia and Emma how having a single utility can be more effective in fixing disruptions to service in a timely manner. The Deputy accepts there are legal and technical issues so why has he not provided amendments? This is not a Government Bill and it comes from certain other sponsors. If the Deputies accept those difficulties, where are the amendments to address them?

A Deputy referred to the recommendations that have been made and supported and I agree that the recommendation for a constitutional provision should not put group water schemes at risk. It is a great fear that we have arising from advice from the Attorney General and separate advice to the committee. This amendment would put group water schemes at risk. The concerns about the language are shared not just by me as a Minister but in the legal advice received by the committee and the Attorney General. This is not a Government Bill so the onus is not necessarily on the Government to provide amendments, but we have been trying to see how we can improve or amend the legislation. We cannot do so and that is why we think there should be a whole new approach to trying to put a constitutional protection in place for water services. We are working on that but it is a complex matter. The risk of privatisation has been addressed but I still support the recommendation put forward and agreed last year. This Bill does not address the recommendation.

As Deputy Cowen notes, much work has been put into this. I completely acknowledge that it is not simple to put together a Bill and persist with the legislation to try to meet the recommendation that the Oireachtas agrees with. Unfortunately, this Bill does not do that. The Deputy spoke about a Government amendment but it is not that simple because of the complexity of the water delivery services. The Deputy knows that complexity full well.

Again, if it was simple, those amendments would already have been made and would have been brought forward by members of this committee or by other people. I want to work together in trying to find the right type of amendment that might be made. However, I believe this will require a different approach from that proposed in the current wording of the Bill. As Deputy Cowen has pointed out, we should be concerned about unintended consequences on group water schemes because of the role they have in our communities in providing water to public people and public entities.

On a timeframe, we had meetings at the Office of the Attorney General recently to see how we can come up with a new direction and a new type of amendment that would put in place the necessary protections in the Constitution that would meet the recommendations of the Oireachtas. I will endeavour to come back to the committee as quickly as possible, next week if I can, to outline a timeframe that might be acceptable to the committee in how we might do that.

On the concerns raised by Deputy Ó Broin, I think he is right about a Constitutional referendum. We want to have as much consensus as possible. As we approach this in terms of bringing a referendum to the people, which we will do, it should be a slam-dunk. It should be very simple and easy and people should all be able to rally around it and say, "Absolutely, we want to protect public water in the Constitution." This Bill will not do that. The Bill as currently drafted, even if we attempt to make amendments around the language, will raise concerns with members of the public in certain parts of the country as to what the eventual interpretation might be by a court of law when it comes to the actual language in the Constitution. That is why I do not think the Bill can achieve what we all want to achieve, namely, public acceptance of a referendum when it is put to the people and to have that referendum agreed upon.

I do sense the Deputies' frustration. I know it took a long time for the committee to get its own legal advice because it is a complex area. However, there has been no delay on my part or on that of my office. I note that a large part of last year was spent in dealing with the water services legislation that was taken through the House.

On opinions that were received from other people that this committee, legal opinions, ultimately, the courts will decide based on what is in the Constitution. There will be different opinions on that, which speaks to the uncertainty that exists and the unpredictability of the proposed amendment. Again, if it is so simple to define these things, I ask the Deputy to show me the definitions and how it was clarified. We have tried and it is not simple. I have to act on the advice of the Attorney General. That is paramount for me as a Minister of the Government. I do not want this issue to go away. I want us to be able to resolve it because it is a recommendation that we accepted and I agree with it personally. I do believe there are very significant protections in place already to protect any privatisation of the water system. There is no agenda on my part or that of the Government to privatise the water system. However, I accept that the public would be happier and would feel safer if there was a change to the Constitution that protected their water services from private ownership. I will work with the committee to do that. Unfortunately, this Bill will not achieve it in my view.