Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I want to clarify what the amendment is about. It refers to "representatives of the trade unions with members in Irish Water”. Once Irish Water is fully established, there will probably be a number of trade unions of which workers within Irish Water would be members. The best way would be to have a representative of each trade union on the forum, but that could be unwieldy. In some other companies there is an agreed representative to represent the trade unions on the equivalent of this consultative forum. The trade unions themselves come up with a mechanism whereby they can agree who is to represent their members' terms and conditions. Sometimes, however, because the members of a company know the inner workings and are most visible in dealing or liaising with the public, their insights can be a lot more useful than others' who might be on that forum.

There are major problems with the way in which this public water forum has been suggested. While it is a good idea, we should have taken a different approach to it. Once again, despite the Government's promise of change and democratic reform, it all lies with the Minister to make the regulations and appointments. There is no mention in this section of the Joint Committee on the Environment, Community and Local Government, which is representative of most parties in this House and the Seanad. That committee would have a view as to how appointments should be done and who should be on the forum.

The section does not outline, which is common across other jurisdictions, that the forum should have a 50-50 gender balance. If society comprises 55% women and 45% men, then the board should have a minimum of 50% female members, if not more.

Pensioners are not listed as having a position on the forum, and neither are ethnic minorities or young people who will be served longest by this company. A range of people are not listed in the section, and while I am not saying that was the Minister's intention, a future Minister may not have the same view. If up to 60 people are to be appointed to the forum, it would be appropriate for the Minister to list them. The legislation should provide for that.

There is no mention of remuneration for the public or whether their expenses will be covered. If the forum is to be representative of the whole country, one member might be in Donegal while another is in Kerry and the meetings may be held in Dublin. There will be a cost involved. I am not suggesting that people should be paid to attend, but if we expect them to be on a public forum, at the very least their travel and other incidental expenses should be covered.

There is no mention of the breakdown of customers either. Will the Minister ensure that customers of public and group water schemes will be represented on this forum? The fact that the section does not, in this day and age, refer to trade union membership is a detrimental step. I am surprised by the Minister, although maybe I should not be.

I suggest that this section requires more substantial amendment than Deputy Stanley has proposed. We should ensure that is reflected if this Bill is to pass at any stage. I am opposed to the concept behind Irish Water, but if it is to be there, it needs to be the best possible company. It needs to be reflective and should listen to the public water forum.

See this speech in context