Alan Kelly (Tipperary North, Labour) | Oireachtas source

He did not, to be fair. He qualified that.

In respect of the legislation we have drafted, what Government in its right mind would potentially pass a resolution, repeal the legislation through both Houses and then tell the people that it is taking away their right to decide on the future of water in this country? I do not believe it is ever going to happen. I would like to see a Government try to do that.

There is another aspect to this. I and this Government must reflect on the law of unintended consequences. I did exactly what I said I would do in this House. I took the motion that was passed here and I brought it to Government. I hope everyone trusts and believes that I did so because we had discussions that I cannot get into. There are genuine questions. I am not deflecting in any way, shape or form. What would we be having a referendum on? Members must remember that through all of this, I must bear in mind all the advice from the Attorney General who is the representative of the Government. I am not legally qualified. Are we having a referendum on water or Irish Water? Are we having a referendum on water services? What are we having a referendum on? This is a genuine and difficult question. Where would we be in respect of the ownership of particular property and property rights? Where would we be in respect of private wells, group schemes, the infrastructure and the land on which that infrastructure exists if it is private property and companies that already produce water on this island, of which there are a multitude?

There is a range of issues such as the inventory of what is protected through this referendum. I cannot guarantee that there will be no unintended consequences from what I accept is a very strongly held view of many people that we need to have such a referendum. I accept the spirit of that view but from a practical point of view, I have just outlined a number of issues. I cannot say or guarantee that there will be no unintended consequences if we were to go down that route. Where would we draw the line? Would we draw the line at this or would we go down the road of ensuring that every other thing goes into the Constitution - CIE, the roads or the bogs? The list could go on. I am not saying that in a flippant manner. I am saying it genuinely. Where would we go?

I have heard discussion in the other House about Europe and how Europe could put pressure on. This has been referenced in this House although not as much. Obviously, I can accept that as an argument. I have COM(2014) 177, a Communication from the Commission on the European Citizens' Initiative "Water and sanitation are a human right! Water is a public good, not a commodity!", with me. It says that treaty rules require Europe to remain neutral in respect of national decisions governing the ownership regime for water undertakings. I will not go into the detail of it but it goes through Article 345 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union establishing the principle of neutrality in respect of these issues.

I say this genuinely, as somebody who in spirit accepts what people are saying here. My bona fides on this could not be any clearer. I accept the spirit. I would never tolerate the idea of Irish Water, or the water infrastructure of this State, being privatised in any way, shape or form. I want to make it clear on behalf of the Government, in light of what I have just outlined to the House with regard to the headline issues - we will get into it in more in-depth detail tomorrow - that the Government is going as far as it can on this issue, given the consequences if we went to a referendum. I can say hand on heart that that is an absolute fact. It is the truth.

That is the major issue that was raised here across the board. However, I would like to comment on a few other issues that were raised. Throughout this debate, I have to accept the bona fides of the Commission for Energy Regulation, which is an independent body, that it does everything in an appropriate manner and that its figures are justified. It not for me to question the commission in any way, shape or form.

I join many Senators on all sides of the House in acknowledging the contribution of the local authorities. I appreciate that the local authorities, for which I have responsibility in my current portfolio, do some good work across the country. There are some very good people in our local authorities. I accept that many local authorities have co-operated with one another in the provision of water infrastructure. As water and the infrastructure for water do not stop at local authority boundaries, we have to deal with these issues at national level. I emphasise that we need investment at a level we have never before seen or comprehended. We need to put billions of euro into water infrastructure quickly. If we do not do this, frankly, we will go down the same road as Italy, which has just been fined €42 million. If Italy does not deal with some of the issues it is facing, it will face further fines every six months.

We need to look at the way Irish Water has created the savings that have accrued from the development in Ringsend and a number of other things, including tendering, and a number of other capital projects. When we think about the future of this country, we must reflect on the fact that raw sewage is running straight into rivers or the sea in 44 urban areas. I stress that I am talking about raw sewage in places where people are bathing and children are swimming. As a father of young children, I do not think this is acceptable. In fairness to everyone in this House, I think that, regardless of what side of this argument they are on, they will accept that this cannot continue.

Investment at a scale that has never been seen before is needed in the interests of future generations. We also need to ensure that the children of today will have jobs in the coming years. When one speaks to representatives of IDA Ireland about the issues they face when they are touting Ireland as a place to invest in, they mention the need for investment in infrastructure, educational issues such as language skills and transport issues such as the development of the road network. I will call a spade a spade and say that issues with regard to broadband telecommunications across this country, in particular, have to be dealt with. I would be the first to say that.

The other issue is water. I know that if we do not do something about water, it will be the biggest issue into the future. I assure the House that if some of our water supplies get infected or polluted because of a lack of investment, some of the largest employers in this country will look at Ireland again when they are making decisions on where to locate and on future investment. We would not be able to bring in the investment that we need into the future. That is a fact. We need to ensure that investment is made, because it will need to more than double in the future.

I compliment and thank the Senators, particularly on the Opposition side of the House, who have expressed their agreement with metering, which helps us to finds leaks. When we know there are leaks, we can save on investment and diversify our investment. By making sure investment takes place in the areas where it is needed, we will not have to spend all our time chasing the leaks. People should bear in mind that the revenue being raised through this process is being used to ensure Irish Water can borrow on a scale that is necessary to make the investment about which I have spoken.

I wish to acknowledge, in fairness to Senator Quinn and others, that the collection of PPS numbers was an issue. It was raised again during this debate by Senators Mac Conghail and van Turnhout. I commit to this House that the protocol which has been agreed with the Data Protection Commissioner will be laid in the Oireachtas Library for anyone to see. I think that is the right thing to do. At some point in the future, I will ask the Data Protection Commissioner to confirm in its capacity as an independent regulator that Irish Water has completed the big process of dealing with all the PPS numbers. I also commit that I will ask Irish Water to come before an Oireachtas joint committee to confirm that all of this has happened.

Senators Mac Conghail and Keane raised the issue of rainwater harvesting. People who need to be supported in their employment of rainwater harvesting will be supported. The introduction of the water conservation grant will help more people to ensure they can introduce methodologies such as rainwater harvesting. There are many other fantastic water conservation and treatment technologies out there, by the way. Anyone who invests in such methods will be supported. The Government will ensure there are initiatives to support conservation in the coming year. The introduction of the water conservation grant is the first such initiative. I want to make it clear that there is an onus on Irish Water to support such initiatives directly.

It was suggested during the debate that the water charges will be paid to the Exchequer. I want to make it clear that this is absolutely and simply untrue. Water charges from households and businesses form part of the allowed revenues of Irish Water as determined by the Commission for Energy Regulation. They cannot be used for anything other than the provision of water services.

Senator Healy Eames suggested that Siemens offered to undertake a metering programme. While such an offer was widely reported in the media, the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government never heard anything about it. The Department never received any formal proposal from the company in question. Unless the offer was an act of charity, which I doubt, it must be respected that a process of procurement and open tender would be required under European laws.

Reference was also made to Irish Water's establishment costs. The Commission for Energy Regulation, which is an independent regulator, examined this and determined that €172 million of the expenditure of €180 million was justifiable. Of course there are issues and concerns. The use of terms such as "consultants," "service providers" and "set-up costs" at certain times during the discussion on this issue was not helpful. It is a fact that when the Commission for Energy Regulation looked at this, it passed €172 million of the €180 million that was spent. It is not the Government or Alan Kelly who is saying this. It is a fact.