Barry Cowen (Offaly, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill. My party and I were always committed, and remain committed, to water services and waste water services and the infrastructure network of both being retained in public ownership. This was reaffirmed and stated categorically in our confidence and supply arrangement with Fine Gael when we agreed to facilitate the formation of Government. There was also a commitment in the pathway programme put in place to resolve the whole issue around the future financing of the water network and system as a utility and that Irish Water would remain as an entity in public ownership and that it would have statutory responsibility to the House with regard to the measurement of various qualities and aspects of the delivery of that service. That being the case, and acknowledging the thrust, sentiment and goodwill associated with those who have brought this Bill forward, it is our intention to work with it to seek consensus in the Chamber to assure the public that Members of the Dáil will, if necessary, amend the Constitution to ensure these facilities, services and networks remain in public ownership for all time.

There were some options open to us when considering the Bill and its implications, and there was a thought process around the three options. One option was to reject the Bill by reasoned amendment which would mean voting against it. The reason for this were the issues around private wells and group water schemes. Earlier, the proposer made reference to the fact they had refused to move into that realm so that it would not become something that might be challenged legally in the future. I respect their intentions in this, but we must be conscious of the fact that while many group water schemes are in private ownership, they access water from a public source. That is a contradiction that needs to be ironed out. As the previous speaker said, because of the new Standing Orders that are in place, and because the Bill is coming from this side of the House, it has to go for prelegislative scrutiny rather than to Committee Stage. I acknowledge the commitment of the Minister when he said he will make the relevant expertise available to the proposers to assist them and to amend the Bill, if necessary, for it to achieve the desired result and consequence that we all want to see. The Minister's offer is welcome and I want to state that publicly.

The other option was to reject the Bill and highlight the existing legislation which, as strong as it is, could be strengthened to further reassert the belief among all Members of the House in a commitment to retain these facilities, services and network in public ownership. As the Minister said, a Bill would need to be passed by both Houses and then a plebiscite would need to be held for this to be allowed to be taken into private ownership, if that were the result. One could, for example, insist on a two thirds majority. In separating the whole issue around the charging mechanism and the ownership issue, I accept there is broad support among the public for the network, services and facilities to be retained in public ownership. If the public can only be assured of this sentiment, as being the sentiment of this Dáil, and to preclude anybody doing otherwise in the future, then maybe a referendum is possible. For the reason outlined previously and by virtue of the fact we can go to prelegislative scrutiny, we can help and assist the proposers in framing this in such a way that it has universal approval. There is no doubt, because of the issues around group water schemes, etc., there are some reservations, fears and worries which must be expressed. Ultimately, we must reserve the position on this issue until the process of prelegislative scrutiny and Committee Stage has moved on to a point where there is universal support and we have addressed those concerns, worries and issues. Then I and my party would have no problem agreeing with the principle, pursuing the principle, bringing it back to the House for final approval and allowing it to go to a referendum.

I do not know where the figure of €20 million associated with holding a referendum comes from, and maybe someone can give me some scientific evidence that is the case. I remember that figure was bandied about at the time of the Seanad referendum. It was said that it was nearly more expensive to hold a referendum on keeping the Seanad than to keep the Seanad. Maybe a member of the Government might enlighten me as to the scientific basis for throwing out the figure of €20 million. Maybe holding a combination of referendums, as could be the case in the coming year or two years, would be a lot cheaper. This could be stated also rather than leaving it out in the ether that the figure is €20 million.

I commend those who are party to the Bill and their intentions, goodwill and sentiment which are shared by the rest of us. In the spirit of the previous speakers, I reiterate that there is every opportunity available to us through the various stages that follow to arrive at a consensus and a conclusion whereby we are safe in the knowledge that if it goes to a referendum, it will not lead to guaranteeing of ownership of our forests, Coillte, our bogs, extraction rights or gas pipelines.

We do not want to get into this realm. I assure the Deputy of our support for the Bill and the thrust and sentiment associated with it. We will vote in favour of it.

See this speech in context