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

Last year, the previous Minister, Deputy Simon Coveney was in this room and raised the same issues the current Minister has raised today. He said that until he had that confirmation or clarity, he could not give the committee a definite answer as to whether it is or is not problematic. He went on to state:

There are issues here on which we have to be reassured. If we cannot get that reassurance, we will have to change the wording to ensure we are covered in the areas where there is concern. That is my point. We can potentially make that change on Committee Stage or Report Stage, but we would be better off doing it on Committee Stage rather then leaving it to the last Stage of the process.

Here we are, nearly at the last Stage of the process, and the Minister, Deputy Eoghan Murphy, has not come with any amendments or anything written from the Attorney General to say what the issues are. I remember that at that meeting of 4 May 2017, Mr. Séamas Ó Tuathail clearly explained that group water schemes are defined by their make-up, ownership, etc. They have to apply to the local authority if they want to go back onto the public water system. By that definition, they are a private water scheme even if they receive public water into the scheme. He made it very clear that this is the case. The Minister has given no evidence on his part. I am sure group water scheme participants are wondering if they are private or public. Irish Water obviously does not know and neither does the State, by what the Minister is saying. Mr. Ó Tuathail explained it in detail, however. I suggest the members go back and read the transcript.

The fact that group water schemes receive water from the public water system does not change their status. For example, where does Diageo get its water from? It gets it from the public water system, as do thousands of other businesses. Does this affect their status as being private companies? No, it does not. They are receiving public water and are supposed to pay for it. That is a different situation. Group water schemes are private schemes by definition and in how they operate and are set up in co-operatives or whatever.

I hear what the Minister is saying and I do want a Bill that would be robust in respect of the Constitution. We did not propose any amendments because we feel that the Bill we presented is robust. The Office of the Parliamentary Legal Adviser, OPLA, raised issues, which we discussed, and raised the possibility of legislation that could clarify, if necessary, where it stops and starts, what responsibility the Government would have etc. If that is what the Minister is saying, I would be very supportive of taking a short period of time that we could look at the legislation and do it. By all accounts, and given the record to date, I am afraid I have little confidence that there is seriousness in this regard.

When the committee asked me in December to approach the Minister, I wrote three letters to him. I got a response from his constituency office, which forwarded the letter on to him. I got no further response to that. In response to the letter he provided to the committee in February, I wrote to him again and got a reply from him saying yes but that proper advice on legislation was needed. Now we are coming to a crucial part of the debate and are being asked to postpone it again. I do not have much faith in the process. The Minister has had 16 months to do it. I have made myself available to the Minister on numerous occasions. He has not come back to us. I am very sceptical about that approach.

On the utility, I think it is very dangerous putting a utility into the Constitution. I do not think that is a possible situation. It has been said to the committee that it is not an urgent Bill and is not on the referendum agenda. I think there are 11 proposed referendums at the moment. We are getting mixed messages. In a letter he wrote to the unions, the Minister stated explicitly:

Notwithstanding these provisions, I am willing to facilitate the holding of a referendum. The question of a referendum is currently before the Joint Committee on Housing, Planning and Local Government. The Thirty-fifth Amendment of the Constitution (Water in Public Ownership) (No. 2) Bill 2016 has already been approved at Second Stage in the Dáil as part of the legislative process. There are issues around the timing of such a referendum in the first half of 2018 [that is the first we have heard about it] and challenges in framing the wording in such a way as to avoid adverse and unintended consequences. I am committed to working with the Committee over the coming months to address these matters.

The unions replied and stated clearly that they are appealing to this committee to support the referendum and the Bill, stating:

We believe that there is broad public support for the holding of a constitutional referendum to prevent the future privatisation of the public water system. We note that the Minister has confirmed that he is willing to facilitate the holding of a referendum. We understand that a Bill to give effect to the holding of a referendum will be considered at committee stage on 28 February 2018 [that was postponed]. We would urge all parties to co-operate to ensure that a referendum is held as soon as possible.

That is part of a letter in respect of Irish Water and the proposed move to a single utility.

I really need something more tangible and more concrete coming from the Minister's side of the table. I urge the other committee members to express that very strongly also. The group water schemes are protected by their very nature. Séamas Ó Tuathail is an eminent senior counsel. I do not know if the Minister has read his contributions to the committee last May. I appeal to the committee not to let this wither away now. While Deputy Ó Broin said he would speak for me, I would prefer it to go to a vote. I would prefer if it was taken here today and that, if necessary, it would go back to the Dáil where we would have the debate. If the Minister is serious, we should be sitting down and looking at legislation to try to deal with those issues of clarification.