Mick Barry (Cork North Central, Solidarity) | Oireachtas source

Six years ago, Deputy Joan Collins put forward the water in public ownership Bill, which calls for a referendum to ensure that water services remain in public ownership. Yesterday, the Taoiseach was asked when this referendum would be held and when a date for it would be announced. He replied that the Minister " is working on it" and that "We will get a timeline when we are ready for it." Water workers across the country insist that this referendum must be announced before 1 January. The reason for this is because 1 January is the date when water services are to be transferred from local authorities to Irish Water, Uisce Éireann. They warn of a real danger that in the context of an international recession and pressure on Government finances, the Government may be prepared to privatise Uisce Éireann and that would in turn lay the basis for the return of water charges through the backdoor, that is, "Water charges 2.0". They believe it is in the vital interest of the people of this country that they are aware of that situation given the hatred across the country towards water charges and the complete opposition to any hint of their return.

I suggest that the demands of the country's 3,000 water workers on the naming of a date for a referendum before the end of the year should be taken seriously by the Minister. From the contact I have had with water workers in my own Cork city and county area and the feedback they receive around the county, water workers are deadly serious about this issue. They are not messing about. They are prepared to fight to achieve a referendum. A smooth transfer of water services from local authorities to Irish Water on 1 January will be ruled out unless those assurances are given.

The water workers are right to warn of the dangers of outright privatisation. There is also the real possibility and the threat of a slow privatisation process taking place. Let us call it creeping privatisation. Even with a successful referendum outcome, a State-owned utility can contract multiple private operators for work. We have seen that with the situation in the ESB. Therefore, it is important that the water workers defend and build their industrial strength in Ireland in order to guard against a contracting-out situation. Nor is it ruled out that a semi-State company could go against the interest of the people in this country and reintroduce water charges. We have seen how the ESB went against the interest of ordinary people by massively hiking up the price of gas and electricity, despite the fact it made €679 million in profit last year. We have seen how Allied Irish Banks, a majority State-ownership bank, went against the interest of ordinary people by attempting a mass closure of their branches at the start of summer. This points to a couple of points. First, whatever entity controls water services in this country should be run by a board that is made up of elected representatives, of the people who use the service, and the workers themselves. In other words, there is democratic control and the board genuinely represents the interest of ordinary people. Second, people remember that the Fine Gael Party, along with the Labour Party, introduced water charges. That Government also had the backing of Fianna Fáil on the broad issues. People would do well to remember that and put those parties outside the door next time around. People would also do well to remember that it was a mass movement of people power on the streets and mass non-payment that defeated the water chargers. We did it once and if we have to do it again, we will do that too.

I refer to the framework document that was issued on 25 June, which provides for local authority workers to be transferred from local authorities to Uisce Éireann on 1 January. The document was put in place in spite of a service level agreement between the local authorities and Irish Water that is due to run to 2026. Despite this, the group of unions signed up to the framework document. It is a major understatement to say there is discontent among water workers nationwide that their unions took this position. The decision was made by the unions without referring to the workers themselves. Workers are advancing the demand that they must have the right to ballot on this. No change of this scale and importance should be rammed through and it cannot happen without the workers' consent. I agree 100% with their position on this and I will watch with great interest as to whether democracy will be served at the end of the day and whether the ballot is put in place by the respective unions on this crucial and vital issue for water workers and society. I will leave it at that.

See this speech in context