Ruth Coppinger (Dublin West, Socialist Party) | Oireachtas source

What we are proposing in amendments Nos. 7 and 8 is that the users of water services should have a say in any plebiscite. People on all sides of the House should avoid continually using the word "citizens" given that we have a significant number of people living in this country who are not citizens. The point was made the other night that 24% of the constituents I represent in Dublin West were born outside Ireland. Some of them have since attained citizenship but others have not. Nationally, 12% of people living here are not citizens, but they are being asked to pay water charges. As such, they should have a say in any decision regarding the ownership of Irish Water. We should be careful of the words we use. Our other request in these amendments is that the McKenna judgment should apply to any plebiscite that is held on this issue.

I am sorry the Ceann Comhairle is not in the Chair because I also wanted to ask why a whole series of amendments has been ruled out of order. For example, a key issue that is now emerging in the public discourse is the refusal of the Government to accept the word "shall" instead of "may", as set out in amendment No. 6. One of the key points the Minister made when he introduced the Bill was that he would guarantee there would have to be a plebiscite - he actually referred to a referendum, but what we have in the Bill is a plebiscite - on any proposed change in the public ownership status of Irish Water. It is now clear that the Minister is not willing to accept any degree of compulsion on Government in that regard.

I wonder why the Ceann Comhairle ruled out this particular amendment. The usual grounds for so ruling is that the proposal would impose a cost on the State. How could the inclusion of the word "shall" in this section involve a cost to the State? Is it the case that we are not allowed to propose the holding of a plebiscite because that would cost the State money? It is farcical. This issue will not go away. What we discussed here in the Chamber at 12.30 on Tuesday night is now in the public domain, contrary to what the Minister wanted. The people who make the decisions to rule certain proposals out of order should have to explain why they did so.

The idea that is constantly peddled from the Government side that nobody in this House stands for privatisation of Irish Water is a nonsense. Who said that? There are many Deputies in this House who are neoliberal hawks and stand for the privatisation of absolutely everything that moves. The idea that they would somehow oppose the privatisation of Irish Water in a broad brush-stroke way is absolute nonsense.

Another important consideration emerged during the debate late on Tuesday night. We have all seen how the troika twisted Ministers' arms for the past six years. We have heard how they made Ministers of this Government do things they said they did not want to do back in February 2011. It was not Labour's way after all; it was Frankfurt's way. What is to stop the troika, EU or IMF from putting pressure on any future government to privatise the water service? I do not know why the Minister considers that so unlikely. Everybody outside this House considers it highly likely, based on this Government's performance since it came to office.

I would like an explanation as to why amendment No. 6 was ruled out of order. It does not incur any cost to the State. Is it the case that we are not allowed to advocate a plebiscite because holding one would cost the State money?

See this speech in context