Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Independent) | Oireachtas source

Perhaps the Minister could raise at the Cabinet table that these Standing Orders need to be changed to allow us to do the job of Parliament.

In terms of the substance of the change, I have no doubt the Minister, Deputy Alan Kelly, as a Labour Minister, would act against any privatisation. The question is why I and others want to move beyond a plebiscite to constitutional protection. The reason is as follows. First, the public do not trust the plebiscite because legislation can be changed and, second, we do not know what is going to come from Europe. We saw the letter from Jean-Claude Trichet to the late Brian Lenihan. He demanded structural reforms. The ECB acted completely beyond its mandate in demanding structural reforms. Four weeks later the first memorandum of understanding, MOU, was signed and it contained two structural reforms. One of them was that Irish people must be charged for their water. One can be absolutely sure there is a view in Europe that the Irish water system should be privatised.

I accept the Minister’s bona fides. I accept he would not vote for the privatisation of water but I do not believe for a second that a future Irish Government is not going to come under very serious pressure from Europe, potentially legally binding pressure, that says the plebiscite is all well and good but a new EU directive states we have to privatise the water supply. My question to the Minister is as follows. If he is dedicated to the Irish water supply never being privatised and if the plebiscite does not provide the guarantee that is required, will he explain to the House what the downside to a referendum is if it achieves what he claims and what I believe he wants to see?

See this speech in context