Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I am pleased to participate in this evening's debate, which provides another useful opportunity to discuss issues concerning the public water system and its importance to citizens, communities, our economy and the environment. The debate comes at a critical time in our collective deliberations on the future of domestic water charges and how we fund domestic water services into the future. Any discussion that informs that debate is welcome.

I understand and appreciate the intention of the Bill before the House, which seeks to underline public ownership of our public water system. While the Bill has not undergone the necessary consultation or deliberation required to establish whether providing additional constitutional protection can, or should, be provided to the public ownership of our public water infrastructure, the Government will not oppose it on Second Stage. However, for the reasons I will outline in the course of my contribution, it is imperative that the Bill undergo the necessary deliberation and scrutiny at pre-legislative stage to ensure that its intention or wording does not run the risk of unintended consequences.

I acknowledge the sincerity of Members from all sides of the House on the need to give public reassurance on this issue. Everybody here wants public water infrastructure that serves the needs of the citizens and businesses of this country. Everyone here, I believe, wants this to be achieved through public, not private, ownership.

Members have been proposing a constitutional amendment that guarantees future public ownership for some time. I have consistently said that I am open to considering workable proposals that provide the necessary certainty on this issue. Three similar Bills seeking a constitutional amendment on water infrastructure have been published this year. We may disagree over how to fund water services, but we share a common view on the State owning this vital public service. Not once have I heard a dissenting voice in this House or in the Seanad on the issue. There are issues regarding tendering certain jobs, processes and functions, but there is general agreement on the core issue of public ownership.

To address public and political concerns, the previous Government, of which I was a member, legislated twice to reassure the people that Irish Water and its infrastructure would not be privatised by a future government. The Water Services Act 2013 prohibited the shareholders of Irish Water, comprising me as the relevant Minister, the Minister for Finance and the board of Irish Water, from alienating their shares.

In 2014, the Government introduced a further safeguard in the Water Services Act 2014. Any privatisation or part-privatisation of Irish Water, through alienation of any ministerial share in Irish Water to anyone other than another Minister, cannot be initiated unless three specific conditions are met: both Houses of the Oireachtas pass a resolution approving such a proposal; the prior approval of a majority of voters in a plebiscite is obtained on the proposal, in other words the public would have to vote; and the Minister must then initiate legislation to privatise Irish Water or alienate any share held by the Government.

Existing legislation, therefore, already provides a statutory prohibition on the disposal of Irish Water and its water services infrastructure. The question for this Oireachtas is therefore whether the legal safeguards already in place need to or can be further strengthened through an appropriate amendment to our Constitution. Some speakers this evening have stated that Irish Water was designed to be privatised. I know that is not the case and it was never the intention of the previous Government to do that. That is borne out by the legislation we have passed since the setting up of the single utility.

Although I am supportive of any additional measures to safeguard public ownership of the public water system, I also recognise the complexity of a constitutional amendment. We should not assume this is a simple matter. The Constitution is the fundamental legal document of the State. It usually does not explicitly recognise the structures of the State that operate below our key institutions. These structures, such as the education and health systems, or the country's energy and road networks, are usually prescribed in legislation.

An additional complication to any constitutional recognition of public ownership of water infrastructure is the proposed wording. It is challenging to construct an appropriate amendment given the various categories of ownership of water services infrastructure in the State. Among those that might experience unforeseen circumstances are infrastructure funded by the State but operated by private group water schemes, or boreholes located on privately owned land. Seeking to enshrine such property in public ownership through a constitutional referendum inherently risks having unintended consequences that could impinge on individuals' constitutional rights to private property. I accept what the Deputy said in her opening statement that that is not the intention of the Bill, but we need to tease out some of those issues in committee.

Owing to these complexities, the Government, in consultation with the Attorney General, in seeking to bring certainty to the future ownership of the public water system, has legislated twice to protect its public ownership. We have given reassurance to the public that they will own the infrastructure that provides us with water services - the most basic and fundamental of services for homes, businesses, social services and communities - unless they, the public, decide otherwise in the future. I, therefore, reserve my position to bring forward a Government amendment to the Bill on Committee Stage.

I take the opportunity of this debate to acknowledge the strong sense of public service that has always defined those who have worked in water services. This spirit of dedication to the public endures in the water sector of today. Whether it is staff of local authorities, custodians of water services for over 100 years and now partners of Irish Water, or those who work directly for the national utility, those responsible for water services delivery have always strived to provide our citizens with a quality service.

I acknowledge that there have been problems in our water infrastructure, associated predominantly with underinvestment and an inadequate national approach to planning and investment for many decades. Yet staff in the sector, and in the group water sector with its strong voluntary dimension, have always shown great dedication to serving the public. We have seen this again and again in times of emergency such as recent flooding and storm events. Staff continue to operate plants and maintain our national assets in difficult circumstances, often without adequate funding. Employees of Irish Water, as well as those who have installed meters on its behalf, have worked with great professionalism in sometimes very hostile environments. Not only is the water system publicly owned, but the employees, whether they be local authority or Irish Water, have always shown a commitment to meeting the needs of the public. They too are an important national asset and this is something which is sometimes lost in the debate.

Once again I thank Deputy Collins and her fellow signatories for bringing forward this Bill. I accept the spirit with which the proposal is made and for that reason I and my Government colleagues will not be opposing the Bill at this Stage. Given the legal and technical issues I have outlined, I must stress again the need for careful consideration of the proposal and its wording between now and its scrutiny at prelegislative stage.

I offer the Deputies who are bringing forward this legislation, if they would like to take it up, the expertise of the Department with regard to looking at the potential flaws that may be in the wording, and I believe there may be some. I know the Deputies have named the legal people who drafted the proposed legislation; perhaps they have got it right or perhaps not. Let us not underestimate the challenge of putting a referendum question together. For a start, a referendum costs the State some €20 million. If one looks at the history of referendums in Ireland, we can see that they are complex and often the debate ends up being about something very different to the question that is actually being asked. We need to have a robust discussion on whether or not it is necessary to take it to a referendum if there are other ways in which we can have the same effect which is to reassure people that there is no privatisation agenda or route here. I am happy to have that discussion in an open and frank manner and I look forward to that discussion taking place on Committee Stage where we can tease through all the issues and get it right collectively.

See this speech in context