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

Irrespective of which side of the debate on which they find themselves, the one matter on which members of the public are in agreement is that there should be no privatisation of Irish Water. They are concerned that we have already begun the process in this regard as a result of the involvement of Denis O'Brien and GMC Sierra. They are very worried that at some point in the future those to whom I refer will become the owners of Irish Water, which will then - to the detriment of households throughout the country - become a for-profit organisation. The people want a referendum to amend the Constitution in order to prevent the privatisation of water services.

When this whole idea was first mooted by Deputy Costello, the members of the Green Party originally involved in drafting proposals to introduce water charges and Jack O'Connor, general secretary of SIPTU and the man who has acted as the mudguard of the Labour Party in recent years, it was nothing more than a diversionary tactic. The Bill before the House is the result of that. On 19 November, the Minister effectively promised that a referendum to ensure water services would not be privatised. When introducing the Bill on 4 December, he stated:

Section 2 provides for a plebiscite on the ownership of Irish Water. It provides that where a government proposes to initiate legislation to amend the existing legislation that sets out the ownership of shares in Irish Water, such a proposal cannot be initiated without a resolution from both Houses of the Oireachtas. Subject to such resolutions being passed, [the Minister should listen to the next part] the Government would then be required to submit the proposal to a plebiscite of all people eligible to vote in a referendum on a proposal for an amendment to the Constitution.

On 19 November and 4 December the Minister stated that the Government would be required to hold a referendum. As he well knows, however, the legislation before the House does not reflect what he said publicly on either date. There is no requirement on the Government to hold a plebiscite. Section 2(1)(b) states that "if such Resolutions are passed, the proposal may, if the Government decides to proceed with the proposal, be submitted by Plebiscite to the decision of the people". What is contained in the Bill does not, therefore, reflect what the Minister said on 19 November or 4 December, what the people want or what he gave them to understand.

It is clear that the Government wants neither a provision included in the legislation to prevent the privatisation of Irish Water or an amendment of the Constitution. It had numerous opportunities to ensure that the company will never be privatised but did not take them. For example, it refused to accept a Bill relating to this matter which was introduced by Sinn Féin. Deputies Stanley and Donnelly tabled amendments to the legislation before us in which they called for the Constitution to be amended by way of referendum but these were ruled out of order. The Minister also had the opportunity to make specific provision in this regard in the Bill but he did not take it. On foot of the debate in which we are engaging, he still has the opportunity to change his mind and ensure that a requirement to hold referendum to amend the Constitution in order to prevent privatisation is included in the legislation.

The Minister can bury his head in the sand if he so desires. The facts are, however, that despite what he said publicly, he and the Government have decided that there should be no requirement in the Bill to hold a referendum to amend the Constitution in order to prevent the privatisation of Irish Water. We can only assume from this that, at the very least, there are people on the Government side - the Minister may be among them - who want to privatise the company. That is why the Bill does not contain a provision to prevent this eventuality.

See this speech in context