Alan Kelly (Tipperary North, Labour) | Oireachtas source

For clarity, I will repeat what I said in regard to the amendments. I will not accept Deputy Catherine Murphy's amendment requiring a resolution of both Houses as we believe it would place more stringent conditions on future Governments. I do not think it is necessary anyway, although I appreciate the spirit of it.

In regard to amendment No. 7, when it comes to referendums or plebiscites, all citizens are entitled to vote and we should stick to that rather than deviate from it. That would be the legal advice as well. Amendment No. 8 proposes that a provision be inserted that the Government shall not expend public moneys for the purposes of promoting a particular outcome in the plebiscite. Section 2(7) requires the Minister to publish details of the proposal and the reasons for it to be submitted to the people in the plebiscite so this is unnecessary. How public moneys are spent is detailed in electoral legislation, so I do not think we need to make such changes in this legislation.

I will not accept Deputy Naughten's amendment No. 5 because providing for a resolution of each municipal district would create a precedent whereby one municipal district or a small number could thwart the will of the Irish people. Having said that, I appreciate the spirit in which he tabled the amendment.

I want to return to an amendment tabled by Deputy Naughten in regard to the word "shall". I was surprised it was not taken but there are obviously reasons for that. Prior to today's sitting, I reflected on this and I asked my officials and the Attorney General to look at it. The Deputy has to appreciate that whatever my views are in regard to all of these things, at all times I have to take cognisance of the legal advice given to me by the Attorney General. Let me be quite clear. I am very satisfied that the current drafting meets the requirements as set out that we would have to have a referendum if, in the very unlikely scenario, we ever get to the stage where a Government would look at this.

To be absolutely certain and to give everyone some form of extra confidence, even though I am absolutely sure the proposed wording is sufficient, I am prepared to look at changing the word "may" to "shall" and I am doing that in the spirit of co-operation. Considering what has been said, it would give those opposite more confidence. I have asked my officials to look at it and I will obviously take the advice of the Attorney General but I am pretty confident we will be able to bring forward an amendment to that effect and in doing so not just change the word "may" to "shall" in this section, but also strengthen the wording in general. I have asked my officials and the Attorney General to look at this and I will bring forward an amendment at some stage to reflect that.

I hope those opposite appreciate the spirit in which I am doing this because it can be done. If it gives greater confidence and comfort to people, we will do it, even though I do not necessarily think it is necessary, which is beside the point. I ask for forbearance as this will have to be drafted. If I could, I would bring it forward on Report Stage but I will bring it forward in the Seanad next week and then bring it back to the Dáil. I give a commitment that not only will I look at it, but I will bring forward an amendment to reflect it.

A number of comments were made, although not necessarily by those present, in regard to the bona fides of myself and the Government. Dare I say it, but my party was mentioned a number of times. There is no way that I would ever tolerate the privatisation of Irish Water, nor would my party or this Government. It is not something that anyone has on the agenda. In drafting the legislation, we had to bear in mind the legal advice at all times. In deciding whether to hold a referendum, the unintended consequences of doing something like that and deciding whether we want to go down that road, we must take on board the advice of the Attorney General at all times. I have had to do that in this regard and that is why I propose to go down the wording route I just outlined in order to give those opposite more confidence.

There has never been an agenda. Officialdom was referenced and there was some insinuation outside the House, not inside it, that there was an agenda. I have not heard of any agenda in regard to a supposed future privatisation of Irish Water. As far as I am concerned, it is an agenda being driven somewhere else. It is not on the agenda and, as far as I am concerned, it never will be. It is something I will never support.

I am going as far as I can with the advice I have been given in order to guarantee that this will not happen. I hope those opposite take that in the spirit it is intended. I will make that commitment on the record. I will not accept amendment No. 5 but I will do exactly what I just said.

See this speech in context