Séamus Healy (Tipperary South, Workers and Unemployed Action Group) | Oireachtas source

This section deals with a plebiscite on the ownership of Irish Water. The measure is in the Bill due to the serious and understandable concern among the public generally that Irish Water, if it ever gets up and running, and if water charges are introduced, will eventually be privatised and sold on for private profit to super rich Irish or international organisations and companies, people who are already very wealthy and who are already involved in the Irish Water scene. That is very understandable because once water becomes a commodity then it is inevitable that full cost recovery will arise. The charge, though initially capped as an introductory offer by the Government, will sky-rocket and the company will eventually be privatised and sold on to private interests.

That is a reasonable and understandable situation for ordinary people because they have seen it happen before, in particular in the case of refuse charges, which were introduced at a very low cost but after a number of years we now have a situation where there is a very significant charge for refuse of approximately €300 per year per household. The waiver scheme has been abolished and the refuse service has been privatised. People are very much aware of that.

The notion of a plebiscite or referendum was initially introduced by Government supporters and the Green Party, in effect, as a diversionary tactic to try to get people’s mind off charges.

We heard it first from Mr. Jack O'Connor of SIPTU; we heard it from the Green Party that was the initiator of the idea of water charges and we heard it from Deputy Joe Costello of the Labour Party. As has been said by other speakers, the formulation in the Bill reminds me of the fraud perpetrated on the people in the last general election, in particular, by the Labour Party which produced its Tesco ad with the warning not to vote for Fine Gael. It stated, "Vote for us and we will stop Fine Gael bringing in water charges". This is something very similar. The Minister came into the House a fortnight ago and gave the impression that water services would be given protection by being inserted into the Constitution in order that they could not be privatised. This is not provided for in the Bill and its provisions are worse than useless. It is sleight of hand and trickery. As other speakers said, the Bill does not provide for any specific or exact circumstance. It states the Government may do - not that it has to - if it so decides. This section is worse than useless and more trickery by the Government, the Minister and the Labour Party. It is worthless. Amendments Nos. 4 to 8, inclusive, are worthwhile, but if the Bill is to be useful, what is needed is an amendment to the Constitution to prevent the privatisation of water forever - full stop.

See this speech in context