Maureen O'Sullivan (Dublin Central, Independent) | Oireachtas source

It is obvious from the changes that have come about from the time when Irish Water was introduced to where it is now, that the Government has been listening. There is a need for more attentive and continued listening because the protests are not going away. For some, it is a matter of principle not to pay for water and for others it is a matter of economics, that they simply cannot afford it. Others feel they are already paying in the taxes they pay. There is no doubt that mistakes have been made with Irish Water and it is difficult for anyone, even those who agree with the water charge, to take seriously the entity that is Irish Water. We were supposed to have a new way of doing business and new politics but the way Irish Water was set up, with legal fees, consultation fees and bonuses, indicates that nothing has changed.

There are problems with water in this country. We know about boil water notices, leaks, poor piping, lead piping, water shortages, wasted water and the fact that not all our magnificent beaches have blue flags, which they should have. Some of them have lost blue flags and there are massive problems. We know we have an ageing and creaking water system in dire need of investment and improvement, so it was vital to get it right. However, there are genuine concerns that the Government cannot be trusted when it comes to ownership and there are fears that Irish Water could be sold. These fears have not been adequately addressed.

The EU water framework directive of 2000 provides in Article 9 that "Member States shall take account of the principle of recovery of the costs of water services". That will open the way for the sale of Irish Water, ostensibly to complete the Single Market or to promote competition in the so-called interest of the consumer. Is this the reason the Government is so resistant to a constitutional referendum to retain Irish Water permanently in public ownership?

The Green Party secured a derogation for Ireland from the full cost recovery effect of the 2000 directive. Last December, the Government had the opportunity to renew it for a further five years. Will the Government clarify whether the derogation has been renewed?

The second obstacle to the Government holding a referendum to retain Irish Water in public ownership is the transatlantic trade and investment partnership deal that the USA and the EU are trying to negotiate. Both sides have made clear their intention to use TTIP to get access to what they call public monopolies, meaning public utilities like water. Under the TTIP deal, water services will be much more vulnerable to outsourcing, private tendering and, ultimately, full privatisation. It will also make it virtually impossible to nationalise or renationalise our water. Incredibly, multinational water companies will be able to sue for loss of future or expected profits in the case of nationalisation. This is because of the controversial investor-state dispute settlement, ISDS, clause. If the TTIP deal goes through, private water companies will be able to sue the Government for the loss of forgone profits if water is renationalised. The ISDS provides for a supranational kangaroo court. Opposing Irish Water on its current road is also opposing TTIP and is about keeping public goods in public hands.

As an example of ISDS, within a few years of the Azurix Corporation taking over the water of Buenos Aires in Argentina, the water was undrinkable and unaffordable. The Argentine Government tried to force the company to make the water drinkable and affordable. Azurix objected to interference in its private business and sued Argentina through an ISDS. The Government lost and had to pay $165.2 million in compensation. The US negotiator for TTIP, the Office of the United States Trade Representative, has its eye on our water. Its factsheet states "We seek to obtain improved market access in the EU on a comprehensive basis, and address the operation of any designated monopolies and state-owned enterprises, as appropriate". It is obvious what could be coming down the line.

There are viable alternatives. While we have our holy grail of the corporate tax rate at 12.5%, I do not believe countries that say they have rates of 20% or 25% pay that because companies can claw it back in other ways. A simple 1% increase in corporation tax would not drive way foreign direct investment but could have secured funding to sort out problems in Irish Water and to set up an efficient and viable structure. Speaking to people from other countries about water issues, they were given a liveable allowance and they were able to conduct their lives with that liveable allowance. Anything over that was charged and that is the way forward.

See this speech in context