Sean Barrett (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 4, between lines 2 and 3, to insert the following:“Plebiscite on the dissolution of Irish Water
2. (1) Where the Government has 90 days from the enactment of this Act to cause the initiation in either House of the Oireachtas of proposed legislation to allow the alienation of the shares in Irish Water issued under section 5(4) of the Water Services Act 2013 to the Minister and the Minister for Finance or the share in Irish Water issued to Ervia, where it is proposed to transfer that share to either the Minister or the Minister for Finance for such purposes of the dissolution of Irish Water, such proposed legislation shall be initiated by or on behalf of a Minister of the Government by—

(a) a Resolution of each House of the Oireachtas passed approving the alienation, and
(b) if such Resolutions are passed, the proposal of the dissolution of Irish Water may, if the Government decides to proceed with the proposal, be submitted by Plebiscite to the decision of the People, and if, consequent upon the proposal having been submitted to the People by Plebiscite, a majority of the votes cast in the Plebiscite shall have been cast in favour of the proposal, legislation may (if the Government so decides) be initiated by or on behalf of a Minister of the Government in either House of the Oireachtas in respect of the proposal.

(2) Whenever Resolutions are passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas in respect of the proposal referred to in subsection (1), the Minister may by order appoint the day upon which and during which the poll at the Plebiscite on the proposal shall be held.
(3) An order under subsection (2) shall be published in the Iris Oifigiúil.
(4) On such Resolutions being passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas, the Clerk of the Dáil shall immediately inform the Minister accordingly.
(5) A person who has the right to vote at a referendum on a proposal for an amendment of the Constitution shall have the right to vote in the Plebiscite.
(6) The Plebiscite shall—

(a) put a proposal for a decision of those persons entitled to vote in the Plebiscite as to whether the Government may, if it wishes to, cause the initiation of legislation as referred to in subsection (1), and
(b) be held in accordance with regulations made by the Minister providing for the holding of the Plebiscite and for other requirements and arrangements that will apply in relation to the Plebiscite.

(7) The Minister shall publish details of the proposal and the reasons for it to be submitted to the people in the Plebiscite not later than 30 days before the day fixed as the polling day for the Plebiscite.
(8) The Minister or the Minister for Finance have an obligation to ensure the orderly alienation of Irish Water and to provide an audit statement on the financial and operational state of Irish Water to each House of the Oireachtas.
(9) Following the alienation of Irish Water to the Minister or Minister for Finance the responsibilities and powers of Irish Water will devolve, within 180 days from the day fixed as the polling day for the Plebiscite, to the Local Authorities as enumerated by the Minister.
(10) No punitive actions to a dwelling, such as the reduction or cessation of water services on a temporary or ongoing basis, will be permitted by Irish Water or Local Authorities.
(11) Tenancy agreements will not be subject to change as a result of this legislation. Landlords cannot take punitive actions against residents on behalf of Irish Water with respect to a charge by Irish Water that in respect of a dwelling being wholly or partly unpaid.
(12) In this section “Plebiscite” means the Plebiscite to which subsection (1)(b) refers.”.

Alan Kelly (Tipperary North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is a lovely morning although I am feeling a bit sick.

Sean Barrett (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This amendment is on the plebiscite for the dissolution of Irish Water. This has been a matter of contention outside of the House. There is a substantial amount of agreement between me and the Minister on the avoidance of the privatisation of the utility. We all interpret that as the wish of the people.

The amendment’s purpose is to allow for the alienation of the shares in Irish Water currently held by Ervia. The presence of shares vested in Ervia is where the problem has arisen with the concerns about privatisation. I want these shares to be transferred to the Minister for Finance. Accordingly, this amendment is a stronger protection in the common goal I share with the Minister to prevent the privatisation of Irish Water. The shares are the vehicle through which this fear of privatisation exists. If we put them firmly in the provenance of the Minister for Finance, it will afford a protection against the shares’ sale.

Nationalisation of the sector is the defence against its privatisation. By having Ervia removed, the amendment would allow the Minister for Finance to reallocate its functions to the local authorities. This would allow a different set-up than heretofore. Having listened to the debate, I am aware of some local authority areas that had bad records in water wastage and others with good records. Perhaps we have not given credit to the latter. We should look more at the good performing local authorities and county engineers.

As water service provision will involve, for now and the foreseeable future, taxpayer funding as well as funding from charges, the amendment proposes no punitive actions against dwellings where, or tenants whose, charges have not been wholly or partly paid, as it involves general taxpayers.

Appreciating as we do that public opinion is so strongly against privatisation of Irish Water, alienating those shares from Ervia to the Minister for Finance, essentially nationalising the company, would be a belt-and-braces approach to what the Minister also wishes to achieve, namely, the protection of Irish Water from privatisation in the future through the mechanism of a plebiscite.

The amendment allows the possibility of reconfiguring water services in whichever form the Minister wishes, stresses the role of local authorities, which have a good record on wastewater services - the measure used in the McLoughlin report on non-performing water authorities - and recognises that people will still make substantial payments for water through general taxation. This is an obstacle to cutting off people's water supply, which the Minister and I both oppose. I table the amendment in the spirit of being of assistance to the House and Minister.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I strongly support the amendment tabled by my colleague, Senator Barrett. It is notable that it is the only one of the first four amendments to have survived, with the other three ruled out of order because they make reference to referendums, which is precluded under the Constitution. There is no reason the Seanad should not be able to move an amendment on a referendum. That is what the House is about. I am aware that it was not the current Government but Mr. de Valera who created the Constitution. As I pointed out some time ago-----

Alan Kelly (Tipperary North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We can get away with that one.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes; the Minister can blow his nose in peace.

Ivana Bacik (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Thanks, David.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Not at all. It is the season of goodwill, jolly ho-ho, rum, raisins, holly berries, mistletoe and the rest of that jazz.

A previous Minister - I cannot remember which one - took up very strongly my point that it is idiotic that Members of the Seanad and Dáil cannot move a resolution that creates a charge on the Exchequer. I urge the Government to examine this issue. Given its taste for holding referendums, it should hold a referendum on the matter.

In any case, I congratulate Senator Barrett on negotiating the line between a referendum and a plebiscite. What he has produced is a plebiscite which has all the characteristics of a referendum. Well done to him.

The amendment will also be a test for the Senators who I would describe as the "Enda-pendents", although I note that two of the Independent Senators who are taking an interest in proceedings voted with their consciences despite having been nominated by the Taoiseach. I pay tribute to them for exercising their consciences and wish their approach extended to their fellows.

The most important elements of the proposed new section are subsections 8 to 11, inclusive. Subsection 12, the final subsection, is simply a definition. Subsection (8) reads as follows: "The Minister or the Minister for Finance have an obligation to ensure the orderly alienation of Irish Water and to provide an audit statement on the financial and operational state of Irish Water to each House of the Oireachtas." The lack of prudent financial oversight is one of the reasons for the current mess. This provision would at least give us a glimpse at the figures and a definitive statement, in as far as that is possible. This welcome proposal should be implemented in any case and notwithstanding any alienation of Irish Water. The company should be required to make an annual statement on its financial state.

Subsection (9) proposes that the powers of Irish Water be returned to the local authorities. I hope this will also mean shedding the additional Irish Water staff. There is no point in shovelling a load of people down to rural Ireland and having them on the payroll when they are doing sweet damn all.

Subsection (10) provides that no punitive actions, such as the reduction or cessation of water services, are to be taken on households. The Minister has been firm and convincing on this issue. As I stated yesterday, he was handed a poisoned chalice and I cannot imagine why he accepted it because he is heading straight for the graveyard, although he does so with insouciance and a smile on his face.

Alan Kelly (Tipperary North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I like a challenge.

Terry Leyden (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister certainly got one.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I compliment him on stating from his first day as Minister that there will not be any reduction in or cessation of the supply of water to dwellings or individuals. Not only is it outrageous, in a democracy, to cut off a person's water supply, but it is also outrageous to cut off someone's gas or electricity supply, particularly given the parlous state of the country.

Subsection (11) prohibits landlords from taking punitive actions against residents. Landlords should not be required to become involved in this matter. It is up to legal tenants to make whatever arrangements they please with Irish Water. I strongly support this crucial amendment, on which I hope we have the numbers to defeat the Government.

David Cullinane (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister to the House. I expect the House will discuss the Bill for some time today and on Monday and I hope we will have constructive debates on the amendments and sections.

While I accept that the fault does not lie with the Government, it is still outrageous that a number of amendments on the section have been ruled out of order and that Senators must confine their remarks to Senator Barrett's amendment. All amendments tabled by Senators Craughwell, Zappone, Mary Ann O'Brien, James Heffernan, Healy Eames, Ó Clochartaigh, Reilly and me, which provided for a constitutional amendment, have been ruled out of order. While Senators are precluded from tabling proposals that provide for a constitutional amendment, the Government has the right to initiate a constitutional amendment on this issue. Instead of exercising that right, as it should have done, it chose to provide, in section 2, for the possibility of holding a plebiscite on the ownership of Irish Water. As Senators pointed out in the Second Stage debate yesterday, the plebiscite promised by the Government is not worth the paper on which it is written. The previous two water services Acts are being amended by this legislation, making it the third Bill on water services. If a Government decides in future that it wants to privatise or sell off parts of Irish Water - full privatisation is not necessary, as we can see from the ESB case - it need only introduce amending legislation to delete section 2. The promise that has bought off some Independent Senators would then vanish.

The position is comparable to that of a Government promising to insert in legislation a provision that it will not reduce child benefit. All it would have to do to break its promise is specify a child benefit rate in a social welfare Bill and produce amending legislation the following year to reduce the rate. These types of commitment are not worth the paper they are written on, and the commitment to hold a plebiscite on Irish Water is a charade. The Government and a number of Independent Senators are engaged in a little choreography on this issue.

I support the amendment and would like the Government to hold a constitutional referendum on the issue. Why is the Minister preventing such a referendum? Why is the Government refusing to let people have their say now? What is the difficulty with holding a constitutional referendum? I remind all the Independent and Labour Party Senators that, not so long ago, they voted for a Seanad motion that called specifically for a constitutional referendum on the ownership of water. That motion has not been vindicated in the Bill and, as such, the logic of their position does not stack up. If they wanted to be true to the motion passed by the House, they would vote against section 2.

As the Minister is aware, there are a range of opinions on Irish Water and water charges. I accept that some people do not mind paying for water and believe it is good to do so. I also expect the Minister to accept that some people have difficulty with the idea of paying for water twice and the charges element of water provision. As the Leader has stated on the Order of Business on several occasions, all political parties are against the privatisation of the water service. Fine Gael, the Labour Party, Fianna Fáil and Sinn Féin have all expressed opposition to privatisation.

I am not sure whether any of the Independent Senators have. I hope most, or all, of them are against the privatisation of water. If the political system, in its entirety, is at one on this issue, why can we not have a conditional referendum?

We will have a number of them in May next year. We could also have one on this issue. Nothing is stopping the Minister or Government from doing that. It adds to the confusion for people. Why is the Government not committing to that? Why are we simply putting something in a Bill which, the Minister would have to concede, can be reversed, deleted, amended, taken out or dispensed with if a Government was minded to privatise water services?

The Government also said it has no intention of privatising water. People have experience of other public services, which were once paid for through progressive taxation, as water was, and were delivered as a right. One paid ones taxes and one's water was provided. We are now changing that to a system of water charges and the so-called "polluter pays" principle.

We had the same arguments about waste collection. When bin charges were first introduced in Waterford, it was nothing to do with privatisation. Fine Gael, Fianna Fáil and other councillors all said it was about improving the service. The argument was made that a body cannot be a regulator of a service as well as a provider. The charges which were introduced started at a very low base and in most areas were £30, but they increased every year. At a certain point the service was privatised, local authorities left and I do not think a single local authority in the State now provides waste collection services.

It is quite obvious that once the concept of charges is introduced, water is commodified and water services are commercialised, it will inevitably lead to privatisation. People have experience of bin charges and the health service, where they have been forced to take out private health insurance. Once the concept of charges is introduced, inevitably private operators and profiteers come in, and services like water become commodities rather than a public or human right, which is what I believe water to be.

Can the Minister explain why water will be any different? We know, because it is anchored in European policy, that what Europe wants is for the full cost of water to be recovered. People will end up paying more. Once they are paying higher charges, things become easier for profiteers and it becomes profitable for companies to buy up our water infrastructure or for the State to get out. Will we then hear the same arguments that we cannot be a regulator as well as a provider of our water services?

I cannot understand why the Government is so fearful of a constitutional referendum on this issue and allowing the people to have their say. If all of the parties in the House and the State are genuinely committed to ensuring that we do not have privatisation, then they should have no difficulty whatsoever in supporting a constitutional referendum on this issue. Ruling out amendments is not the fault of the Minister or Government, but refusing to hold a referendum on the issue is clearly the responsibility of the Minister and Government.

I have more to say on this issue, but others wish to contribute. I would also like to hear the response of the Minister. I ask him to answer some direct questions. Can he confirm that if a future Government wanted to privatise water services and not hold a plebiscite, all it would need to do would be to introduce a water services (amendment) Bill that would delete the relevant section? That would negate the need for a plebiscite. Can the Minister be honest with people and say that is all it would require?

Can the Minister explain why he will not hold a referendum on the issue? Of what is he fearful? What is the problem with it? People want to have their say on this issue. Why would we fear the people and a referendum?

Terry Leyden (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister and his officials to the House. The fact that we have an opportunity to discuss this issue is because of the Irish people who voted to retain the Upper House. Without their support, this issue would not be debated here today. It is an important point and the 60 Members of the House have a unique opportunity to put forward ideas to the Minister. He is very attentive and willing to listen to ideas.

The Bill refers to a plebiscite. Senator Barrett has tabled a very good amendment, which we will support. Senator Craughwell's amendment was extremely good, and I respectfully suggest that on Report Stage he changes the term "referendum" to "plebiscite" with the same wording. The wording is very precise.

The idea of a plebiscite or referendum is academic, to some extent. In reality, the imposition of charges is the straw that has broken the camel's back. Many people spoke to me about the household charge, which has been implemented and paid. Why could the Government not have incorporated water into it to fund water provision and services? It would have been much more acceptable. Instead, there is a charge on a charge, which is causing problems.

Yesterday, I heard a clip in which the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Howlin, committed the Labour Party to opposing the imposition of water charges. That is a real betrayal of the electorate. It is misleading the people. The former Minister, Deputy Rabbitte, has said that is what people say during elections. I remember commitments given in manifestos in 1977 which, for better or for worse, were implemented. It was the first time I was elected. The other parties also went down the same road at the time, but people do not realise that. I remember advertisements were taken out in certain newspapers by Fine Gael and others. Let us not discuss history; we are where we are at this point in time.

If there is a widespread decision by people not to pay under any circumstances, will that negate all the efforts being made in this regard? The system will be unworkable unless it has the will and support of the Irish people to pay for water. There were large protests in every town and city in the country. The message should be clearly heard. We have received a large number of e-mails in the past few days. Will people decide not to pay and let everyone else carry the can?

It is the first time I have not yet filled out any form, and will not until I get clarification on the situation. I do not know whether the situation regarding those with a second house has been clarified, in terms of whether they are legally liable to pay the charges, irrespective of the tenancy arrangements. Paying back retentions is not acceptable.

Families with children in college, in particular those from towns like Roscommon which have no universities, have to pay for apartments and water charges, on top of charges at home. There is no provision in the Bill for a cap on the amount any family would have to pay, whether children are living at home or in rented accommodation.

I refer to the Minister's dismissal of a referendum and unintended consequences. It would be fair that the advice of the Attorney General is put on the record of the House.

Any explanation should set out exactly why the proposal for a referendum was turned down.

I understand the complications. Water is a complicated issue. Several contracts have already been given out to private organisations such as Veolia in Roscommon as well as other companies that are now managing water schemes in some of the cities in a partnership set-up. They have a certain control over water at this point and whether we could nationalise these arrangements now is for the Minister to explain.

Another question is the matter of the ownership of the River Shannon and the waterways. It is proposed to extract water from the River Shannon to provide water for Dublin. Is provided for in the Constitution? Could that be provided for by amendment? Could that be regulated for? I understand the complications of the issue. It is complex, but it is coming to the fore. I know as a former Minister of State that Ministers get excellent advice, and the Minister has tremendous officials with him today. I imagine the Department is altogether aware of the issues. I always found that I relied totally on the civil servants who advised me. I found them to be of the highest quality and they offered the best advice and I respect the advice being given.

It is a complex issue. The Constitution contains a right to private property. I understand that if we have a well, we can extract water and sell it. There is a question arising if we have a referendum and decide that we all own that water and that individuals cannot own it. I understand these things. It is not as simple or straightforward as having a referendum and then deciding everything will be solved. One unintended consequence is the position of an organisation providing water, for example, Ballygowan Water in Limerick, which has some lovely wells.

Alan Kelly (Tipperary North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is a good example.

Terry Leyden (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The company is extracting water from the land and property. Is that in public ownership?

Alan Kelly (Tipperary North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No.

Terry Leyden (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I understand the consequences.

Alan Kelly (Tipperary North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I appreciate what Senator Leyden is saying.

Terry Leyden (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The kernel of the situation is the overall question of charging, the willingness of people to pay and the efforts by People Before Profit and anti-government types of all sorts suggesting we should pay for nothing and do nothing. I remember the same people suggesting that there should be no charge for the collection of waste in Dublin. They said they would go to jail and never pay for the collection of refuse. I do not hear a word about them any more. They moved on to the next issue, which is water.

It is fundamental and important. I emphasise that people in my area have been paying for water up to now. We pay for water for farming and for business. We are excluded from the household charges for water. There is an exemption of 40,000 gallons per year.

There is a difference. Furthermore, there is an urban-rural divide in this regard. If the people in the urban areas of Dublin, Waterford, Galway and Limerick decide not to pay, what are the consequences for this or any future Government? Put frankly, are the Government charges enforceable at the end of the day? If not, then the Minister will have to avoid a situation whereby those who are paying will say they will not pay either.

Labhrás Ó Murchú (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator Barrett has made a telling case for his amendment. We had an exceptionally good debate in the House yesterday evening. It was clear in the House and outside beforehand that there was a fair degree of tension. This was because people come at an issue like this from different points of view. That is what democracy is about at the end of the day. Then people vote and accept the result. Many people in the House, even those who voted for the legislation, would have been far happier if we had promised a constitutional referendum in order that the issue of the ownership of Irish Water was sacrosanct, beyond question and enshrined in Bunreacht na hÉireann.

In the heady days of Irish patriotism the slogan was: "The land of Ireland for the people of Ireland". James Fintan Lawlor, Michael Davitt and such people knew precisely why that had to be acted on. After all, the land was one of the most important and essential resources that the country had. They did not want to see it being used as a cash cow for absentee landlords, which was the case at the time. When the State got the opportunity, it did a particularly good job in ensuring that the land was available to the people and could be used in a productive manner.

The same issue arises with water, there is no question about that. More so than land, it is an essential resource for the people. Senator Barrett has made some exceptional contributions to the House. Members will agree that he has been most investigative and analytical. He has put his expertise at the service of the House on many complex issues in his time in Seanad Éireann.

In this case he is trying to ensure that in the absence of a constitutional referendum, some class of block is put in place in respect of the shares of Uisce Éireann. Senator Barrett would admit that this is not the ideal route to go. Let us suppose we agreed that we must protect the water of Ireland for the people of Ireland and ensure that it does not get into the hands of private interests and become a cash cow once again. If there were privatisation, Irish people might not be in charge of that process. This is especially relevant today given the disappearance of international borders etc. People from China, America or anywhere could control Irish Water if that were the case.

On the face of it the plebiscite might seem like a good idea. However, we all agree that legislation is what it is: it is legislation. Every day and every week in this House we make amendments to legislation. Given the pressures that have been on the economy during the recession and those that are and will continue to be on the economy, it is not beyond the power of imagination to envisage that whoever occupies these seats in any future Seanad Éireann would have legislation before them regarding the privatisation of, or, rather, removing the ownership of, Irish Water from the people. Of course, that is a possibility.

This raises another question. If we are all agreed on the ownership of Irish Water by the people, surely the only way to copperfasten that beyond question is to have it in Bunreacht na hÉireann. While I am supportive of Senator Barrett's contribution, because I know where he is coming from, there is no doubt that we cannot still accept that we are not going to have that. It is within the power of Government to do that.

Of course there are complexities. When Bunreacht na hÉireann was first brought into being in 1937, there were many challenges facing the emerging State a short time after the Civil War. It was one of the greatest challenges and it is to our credit as a people that we handled all those complexities at the time. The small number of changes which have been made to Bunreacht na hÉireann in the intervening years provide an indication of how to overcome complexities when we are faced with them.

We deal with complex issues in the House on a weekly basis. Surely, nothing could be more demanding of our attention, time and energy then this issue of water, which belongs to the people and without which we could not live.

My appeal is that we would be supportive of the interim measure that Senator Barrett has put before the House. I complimented the Minister yesterday on the valiant efforts he has made. I made the point then and I make it again now.

We must avoid political partisanship because if we do not, we will not truly reflect what the people are saying, the unrest on the ground and the fears and suspicions. If we do not reflect honesty and respond with integrity, we are not doing what we should be doing as legislators. Given the valiant stand taken by the Minister, will he go one step further and reflect on what he has heard in the debate?

A motion has been passed seeking a constitutional referendum and during the Christmas recess we will hear all about the efforts made to encapsulate all options, ideas and concerns, which are complex. It is, however, straightforward to use the legal brains at our disposal to come up with a solution to include Irish Water in Bunreacht na hÉireann. If we do not do this, as Senator Terry Leyden and others have said today and yesterday, even when all of our work is done and the legislation is passed and has to be implemented, some measures will not be acceptable to everyone. However, this is one issue on which there is huge hostility. When I raised it yesterday, a few heads nodded. If people do not pay, will they be brought to court or put in jail? Some Members shook their head and said, "No." I will pay the water charge and get good value for money, but that is not the issue. The issue is changing the ownership of Irish Water which belongs to the people. I am sure the Minister has tried, but I ask him not to give up and to return to the Cabinet to discuss again the possibility of holding a referendum. The proposed plebiscite and legislation will not put people's fears to rest, but, at the same time, I compliment Senator Sean D. Barrett for trying to plug a hole which is likely to burst if we, as legislators, do not find a proper, positive and constructive way forward on this issue.

Katherine Zappone (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I again welcome the Minister to the House. I appreciated many of his comments yesterday and his willingness to engage with the Seanad in the light of the contributions he was expecting to be made. There has been a great deal of expertise this morning reflective of what the Minister anticipated. I support Senator Sean D. Barrett's amendment on which he has brought his economic expertise to bear. We have also benefited from the expertise of politicians on the other side of the House who have significant experience in politics. We have also heard from cultural historians who speak with great eloquence and there has been legal analysis. It is great, therefore, to participate in the debate.

I am also one of those who argue that public ownership can ultimately only be guaranteed by a constitutional referendum, an issue on which I commented yesterday, but if we cannot have this, the amendment would represent a way to plug the gap, as Senator Labhrás Ó Murchú said. There are still a few holes in the proposal to have a plebiscite. It should be made as strong as possible to reflect public opinion. I appreciate the Minister's comments both at the beginning and the conclusion of the debate yesterday evening and his bona fide commitment to oppose the privatisation of Irish Water. That is what the amendment and others are trying to do. The only amendments we can make to this section relate to holding a plebiscite. Deputies tabled amendments in the Dáil to provide for the holding of a constitutional referendum. My understanding is that they were ruled out of order because constitutional referendum proposals could only be accepted if the legislation solely related to them. Several of us made efforts this morning which were also ruled out of order to move beyond the holding of a plebiscite to a constitutional referendum. Article 46.2 provides that every proposal "for an amendment of this Constitution shall be initiated in Dáil Éireann as a Bill". The Dáil and Seanad amendments seeking the holding of a referendum have been ruled out of order for different reasons; therefore, Deputies and Senators do not have the power to change the Government's view that a plebiscite is the best way to guarantee public ownership. The Constitution guarantees that we, as law-makers, can privatise but internal rules block us such that we cannot propose a constitutional guarantee of public ownership. Only the Government can do this, which is a pity because via this single decision the Minister could secure the goodwill of a huge swathe of the people.

In his opening remarks the Minister offered us a few paragraphs on why that was not possible. The first paragraph related to complexity, an issue on which Senator Terry Leyden elaborated, which was helpful. The second paragraph indicated a slippery slope argument in that if we were to do this in respect of water services, what about similar referendums on other infrastructure considered to be strategically important?

In his concluding remarks the Minister mentioned the problem of unintended consequences. He said he had consulted the Attorney General, which I appreciate, and mentioned a few arguments coming back. Did her office conduct a scenario analysis of unintended consequences? One can only think about such consequences if one has a wording. Was it using this wording that the Minister had thought of unintended consequences or did he have another wording? I wonder whether that happened while acknowledging it is not the Government's habit to make the Attorney General's advice available to law-makers, although I still do not understand this. It would be helpful for him to provide us with a little more by way of rationale in that regard. He is nodding his head and I look forward him to doing so.

In the absence of having any power as Senators to continue to find ways to secure a constitutional referendum in order that Irish Water can be placed in public ownership, our position is that we can only ask. It feels a little like begging because the Government has the power to reconsider. I strongly support the amendment to strengthen the plebiscite. I am looking forward to, and anticipating, some of the arguments from Senator Thomas Byrne whose amendments might be a creative way of ensuring a referendum. We will debate them later. I affirm the questions asked by Senator David Cullinane and hope the Minister will reply to them. Will the Government bring forward amending legislation to propose the holding of a referendum?

We have some good examples of wording as proposed by Members of the Dáil, Senator Craughwell and the Sinn Féin Senators. If that is not the case, why will the Minister not do this? I hope the Minister will answer those two questions and will affirm the encouragement of Senator Ó Murchú that he will not give up and will go back to Cabinet on this issue.

Fidelma Healy Eames (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Like other Senators, I am disappointed that the amendments proposing the holding of a referendum on protection from privatisation of our water resource have been ruled out order. I would like an explanation for their being ruled of order.

Alan Kelly (Tipperary North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

For the record, it is not my role to explain.

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Cathaoirleach has ruled on the matter. It is not for the Minister to respond on that issue.

Alan Kelly (Tipperary North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I would have no problem debating them if they were allowed.

Fidelma Healy Eames (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I believe the problem could have been worked out. The Minister in his response yesterday in this House asked if Senators were seeking that Irish Water or water be protected from privatisation under the Constitution. We are seeking the protection of the water resource. We should have debated that issue.

What are we afraid of? Why are we not willing to stand up for the Irish people and say that water is a life resource that needs to be protected? It is proposed to hold a referendum providing for a reduction in the age for candidates for the Presidency. Is it more important to hold a referendum on that issue than it is to hold a referendum that seeks to ensure protection of a resource for life that, as stated previously by Senator Marie-Louise O'Donnell, should be "referendum-ly" ours?

Marie Louise O'Donnell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Stop quoting me.

Fidelma Healy Eames (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I agree with Senator Ó Murchú that we need to protect the water of Ireland for the people of Ireland. I am delighted that Senator Barrett has put forward a measure that could strengthen the weakness of the plebiscite which the Government is offering the people. Senator Barrett's middle ground protection is a wisely and judiciously sought strengthening of the plebiscite, which is nothing in that it is reliant only on a resolution of both Houses. When have the Houses got right what the people want? We are aware of the desire and will of the Irish people that water be protected and not subject to sale.

The Government and Independent Senators who last night voted against this measure sold out the potential for the protection under the Constitution of our water. They sold us out and they sold out our resource. In so doing, they sold out the potential sources of our lakes that supply the water, including Lough Corrib in Galway, the Shannon and other midland lakes. This is a serious issue. What we are trying to do here is ensure we are never again beholden to others. The Irish people are of the view that we are too beholden to Europe and European regulation. Unless Senators give serious consideration to and vote in favour of the measure proposed by Senator Barrett we will be leaving ourselves open to Ervia selling off its shares in the future. That is what this is about. Ervia can sell its shares. Senator Barrett's measure would ensure that the Minister for Finance or the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government hold those shares. Nationalisation of those shares would be a bulwark against privatisation into the future. Who in this House would disagree with that? We must act for the Irish people and our natural resource of water which we cannot live without. As stated earlier if, in the future, a Chinese company buys the Ervia shares it will put its needs ahead of the Irish people.

Let us give serious consideration to this legislation and do our business well by including the necessary protections. I welcome that debate on this amendment, which provides some protection, has been agreed to. I thank Senator Barrett for his wisdom in tabling it.

Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I tire of the manner in which things are done in this country. A constitutional referendum was proposed to ensure protection of the right of the people of Ireland to their water. Article 10.3 of the Constitution states: "Provision may be made by law for the management of the property which belongs to the State by virtue of this Article and for the control of the alienation, whether temporary or permanent, of that property." I sought amendment of Article 40 of the Constitution to protect water. Many Senators have said they would like to ensure protection of our water by way of referendum.

The Minister said yesterday that there was a difficulty in providing for protection of water under the Constitution because of property rights. In this regard, he adverted to private wells and so on. No Government has been slow in moving to nationalise or take possession of any asset it felt it needed at a time of crisis. If in the morning a particular area was without water the Government would not be slow in coming forward to seize all the wells in that area to provide water. Thus, I do not accept the Minister's argument.

Is the Minister aware that a company was established in October of this year in the UK named "Irish Water-Uisce Éireann"? I wonder if it is in any way related. Everything I have read or heard about water services provision in terms of the several attempts already made to get legislation in this regard through the Houses has been hamfisted and a total mess. I admire the Minister in that he has at least tried. However, when tens of thousands of people in this country came out to protest he had the unique opportunity to at least appease a substantial number of them by providing for protection of Irish water by way of referendum.

Perhaps the Minister will when responding show himself to be a brave Minister and indicate that he will bring forth a Bill to the Dáil and then to the Seanad to provide for a referendum not only on water but on all our natural resources and ownership of them?

Alan Kelly (Tipperary North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I can-----

Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I can read the Constitution too.

Denis Landy (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Senator should do so then.

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator Craughwell without interruption.

Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will leave that to Senator Landy. I am sure he is well capable of it. Did the Minister not learn anything from the protests on our streets?

Alan Kelly (Tipperary North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Of all the people in this State, I did.

Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am not sure the Minister did.

Alan Kelly (Tipperary North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is the reason I am here today.

Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator Barrett's amendment is being debated.

At least it goes some way towards meeting the requirements that I would have had. I intend to ask Senator Barrett not to push for that today because I am going to see if there is a way I can reintroduce a wording similar to what I have in my amendment for a constitutional referendum. I will deal with the Cathaoirleach's office and some of the experienced people around this House to assist me in that regard.

Senator Cullinane asked a couple of questions to which I, too, would like an answer. Will the Minister remove section 2 and initiate a referendum? I would like to know the advice of the Attorney General and I would like to know what the Department officials advised. Will the Minister publish those advices?

Every time I see something like this I think of the grey beards, the Sir Humphreys, somewhere in the background, dictating how things are being done. They do not have to put themselves before the people as the Minister will, and he will answer for this Bill-----

Alan Kelly (Tipperary North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Senator is certainly right about that.

Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Maybe the Minister should go back and have a look at it. Let us all try to find a way that we can guarantee ownership. We cannot guarantee ownership with this plebiscite. I would like the Minister to give a direct answer to Senator Cullinane's question. Is it possible for the Minister to introduce an amendment now or at some stage in the future or for any Minister to do so?

Alan Kelly (Tipperary North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It would be a brave one.

Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is not a case of being the brave one. We saw Lisbon II.

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

One speaker only, please.

Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We did not like Lisbon I and we did not like Lisbon II. Are we going to have plebiscite one, two, three and four, until such a time as some future Minister gets the answer he or she wants?

I have huge reservations about this. I support the Minister in trying to fund water but I cannot support this Bill without a referendum. While I would like to stay on my feet talking, I am just totally and utterly depressed by what I see here, so I will leave it at that.

Mary White (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This whole Irish Water situation is a national shambles. It is our policy in Fianna Fáil to abolish Irish Water and suspend the charges pending a full review of the policy. Fianna Fáil has consistently opposed the creation of Irish Water, and the controversy of consultancy costs, bonuses and over-staffing of this super-quango has borne out our fears. Irish Water is top-heavy in management, which has been placed on top of the existing water services in the local authorities. It has lost the confidence of the Irish people and it must be abolished.

As I said yesterday, it has caused anarchist groups to arise and create a potentially difficult democratic situation in the country. If these people on the extreme left get into government the country could be destabilised and it would give out the wrong message around the world, particularly with regard to foreign direct investment, which would run away quickly if there were any break in the continuity of centre-right or centre-left governments. We need foreign direct investment and if they see all these anarchists becoming part of government we will be on a rocky road.

The new delivery model should be a mutually owned holding company owned by the customers. The company would set national standards, be responsible for capital investment planning and borrow on behalf of local authorities. Delivery of services should be restored to the local authorities in order to ensure local knowledge and direct democratic accountability, and the company should be a slimmed-down provider of national water infrastructure.

The Minister will agree that the national road network is outstanding as a result of the partnership between the NRA and the local authorities. I do not why the same cannot be done with regard to water services. The national routes are world class.

I understand it is very difficult for the Government to face up to the fact that Irish Water is such a shambles, but if this were a business the decision would be to cut losses and start from scratch. I wish the Minister good luck.

Marie Louise O'Donnell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I voted to have the Bill read but I did not vote on the Bill. I wish to point out to other Senators that if they intend to quote me they should quote me correctly.

I think we should preserve our water, purify our water, supply our water and pay for our water. I have said this from the beginning. I also think it should be fair, just and affordable and it should be ours. This is very important to me, because it is the argument I made here a month ago about it being ours and nobody else's. I have researched the World Bank and the way it walked into countries all over the world and, in order to help them pay off their debts, took their water. Some countries were left without water and some were left with a trickle; some were left with cholera; some were left badly supplied, while others had to repay fortunes to the World Bank to re-nationalise their water. It was vulture funds, bank speculators and corporations who did it, and they beggared the poor. Today, large companies own 34% of water. This is an extraordinary statistic. The World Bank rushed in to congratulate the multinationals in Argentina, but the government in the end had to re-nationalise.

When I hear the word "privatisation", I am apoplectic. I am in four minds about this Bill. I understand we have to pay for water but I do not understand the way it was set up, which was so outrageously bad that Noddy and Big Ears and some people in Toytown would have done a better job of it. I understand that what the Minister had to take was a poisoned chalice and I know what he had to try to realign. I know he made some attempt with regard to a plebiscite but I want him to explain to me the watertight nature of the plebiscite. I want him to explain to me the legality of the plebiscite. I know that it is at least something, because I can tell the House about the last legalisation with regard to Irish Water, which was so wanton and so loose that it could have been changed overnight. I want to know where does the Irish public and public ownership stand in relation to section 2, which provides for a plebiscite on ownership of Irish Water. That is where I stand and fall on how I vote. That is what I have to be convinced of. I know we have to pay. I would prefer if we were metered and I know that will come into play in 2019 or before. I agree with paying for water and with the conservation, purification and supply of water. However, things were done very badly. In all my days of working in the public sector and with the public, I have never been as upset and abused - as I know the Minister has been - on all kinds of social media. That is the game, and as a public figure one cannot hide from it. However, many of the people who write and e-mail are correct. This is very difficult. While I know that, generally speaking, the Government is trying to clean up the pipes and clean up supply, clean up effluent, clean up waste management and create a great supply, the way it has gone about it has absolutely undermined the trust of the Irish people, to the point at which they are not even listening now to any form of reasonable argument, and I do not blame them.

I need the Minister to convince me that the plebiscite will work, will be watertight and cannot, as some Senators have suggested, be realigned like the lottery was realigned overnight and given to Camelot and the teachers of Canada. I was a lone voice in the wind on that issue. I continue to hold to the idea that water should be retained in public ownership. Some people think this is not as important as the charges but it is important to trust something that we can own and develop into a world class service over the next 30 years. I would come closer to believing in it if I thought it was ours and that we could take pride in it. In the Netherlands, one would nearly be jailed for mentioning privatisation because it is so watertight. If the Minister can convince me that the same will apply here, I might be able to take the abuse with a little bit more heart.

Thomas Byrne (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister for the assiduous attention he has shown to the debate and for listening to the robust and differing views expressed by Senators. I suggest to Senator O'Donnell this provision could be changed in exactly the same way that the national lottery was dealt with. It is the same procedure and the national lottery sets a precedent in this regard.

The provision on the plebiscite has already been amended. I pointed out this morning that it is an example of a political bait and switch. There was an obvious error in the first version of the provision and the Minister subsequently introduced a more detailed proposal. However, the revised provision will not make a huge difference because all legislation can be changed by future legislation. We might think in terms of two or three years but Senator O'Donnell reminded us that the national lottery was privatised 30 years after it had been established. That was a big issue for the Senator and for many people around the country. We have to think about what the fourth or fifth Government after this one might propose. The political tempo could change and we have a responsibility to ensure that what we do holds fast until the people decide otherwise. The only way to do that is by means of a referendum.

A large number of amendments have been ruled out of order but I urge my colleagues not to get hung up about them. A specific provision in the Constitution prevents the Seanad from initiating a constitutional referendum. We are governed by the Constitution in this regard. It is not the fault of the Cathaoirleach or the Minister. I would like a constitutional provision to prevent a future Oireachtas from discussing the alienation of Irish Water. That is what is at stake in this debate. A Bill is only as watertight as Government policy dictates. The whip system is rigid and if a future Cabinet decided to sell Irish Water, the necessary legislation would be passed by the Oireachtas. All that is required is the deletion of section 2. I acknowledge that the Minister will never initiate such legislation and I fully accept his bona fides and his political views. I would never introduce such legislation, although Senator Quinn indicated that he might do so.

Marie Louise O'Donnell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator Quinn would do it. He is pro-privatisation.

Thomas Byrne (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

He said he might do it. He did not specifically say that he would, however.

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As Senator Quinn is not here, it would be unfair to speculate about his intentions.

Thomas Byrne (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have the greatest of respect for Senator Quinn even if I might not agree with him on everything. We are not looking at this or the next Government; we are looking at the distance between the establishment of the National Lottery and its sale. The Bill does not deal with that distance.

I have suggested that the public water forum be turned into a constitutional convention on the issue of privatising Irish Water, and would make recommendations that the Government could implement. This was an attempt to come some way to meet people's concerns while recognising that the Seanad cannot introduce legislation providing for a referendum. Even this proposal is not watertight but it is better than the Minister's proposal because at least we would be allowing for the possibility of a referendum in legislation.

The Minister's proposal on a plebiscite refers to the alienation of shares but it does not deal with the assets of Irish Water. We have sold shares in Bank of Ireland but we sold the assets of IBRC, namely, its loan book. There are different ways of privatising public bodies. We could sell the shares, the business or the physical assets. That is a significant lacuna, and I would like to hear the Minister's response to an amendment I will move later on this subject.

Lorraine Higgins (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As I did not get an opportunity to speak on Second Stage, I wish to commend the Minister on the clarity he has brought to a cloudy situation. He has introduced fairness and ensured affordability for all customers of Irish Water.

It is important to clear the air in regard to section 2. We need to forget about scaremongering because the reality is that the section guarantees public ownership of the utility by providing for a plebiscite. As one of the Labour Party Senators who voted to allow for a debate on the possibility of holding a referendum to safeguard Irish Water, I am satisfied that the Minister's proposals will safeguard it from privatisation. With respect to my colleagues, I think we are fighting the wrong battle. We should save our strength and depth of feeling for future Governments because Fine Gael and the Labour Party have ruled out privatising Irish Water. If Fianna Fáil, Sinn Féin and a plethora of Independent Members want to privatise Irish Water, we should fight that in the trenches. I speak for myself in regard to the day I voted on the Order of Business. Retaining Irish Water in public ownership was paramount for me; the mechanism by which that would happen was not as important. I am reassured by the strength of the language in the sections of the Bill we are currently debating. The word "shall" makes a demand, as opposed to "may", which is merely persuasive. This shows a definite intention on the part of the Minister to safeguard this utility for the Irish people. I ask my colleagues in Opposition whether Fianna Fáil, Sinn Féin or Independent Members would delete section 2 if they are elected to Government.

Brian Ó Domhnaill (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

David Cullinane (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Hear, hear.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That was Alice in Wonderland.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister and others have said that nobody in either House - not a single person - has ever spoken in favour of privatisation. The Minister heard two people doing so yesterday. Regardless of how one looks at this issue, one cannot deny that Senators Quinn and White said clearly that it would be a good idea to discuss it and that we should not be closed to it. There is the Minister's answer. I would say there is a hell of a lot more of them in the bulrushes. Certainly this is a Fine Gael point of view.

I was down in my little office, working for the people and slaving my fingers to the bone, when I heard the plaintive tones of my long-time good friend, Senator O'Donnell. I hope nothing I say causes her to burst into tears. I suggest that when she said she "voted to have the Bill read", it was dissimilation of the most obvious kind. I remind her that she was voting for the Second Reading of the Bill. Everything that needed to be said in terms of Second Stage speeches had already been said. We did not vote on the reading of the Bill - we voted on the Second Reading of the Bill, which involves moving on towards the amendments.

Marie Louise O'Donnell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

To move on to the amendments-----

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator Norris's observations have been noted.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, all right. I understand, although I cannot verify it, that my good friend, the greatly admired Senator O'Donnell, had dinner with the Taoiseach the night before. I hope the price of her conscience was more than a plate of chips. I hope that when she wrestles with her conscience on this occasion, her conscience will win. I have to say directly to you, Senator, you made-----

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator, you should address your remarks through the Chair,

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Through the Chair, I wish to say that Senator O'Donnell made a most thrilling, passionate and informed speech about water. I really took her seriously. I think the plaintive note in her voice today suggests that a little bit of a struggle is still going on. I look forward to the successful outcome of that struggle.

Marie Louise O'Donnell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Senator came all the way up from the basement to tell me that.

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is a matter for Senator O'Donnell how she wrestles with her conscience. I do not think Senator Norris can do it for her.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I could always try.

Brian Ó Domhnaill (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The very good discussion in the House on this section of the Bill has been brought about by the worthwhile amendment proposed by Senator Barrett. The amendment cuts to the bone of Irish Water in its current form and where we want to see water in the future. It touches on financial transparency and the transparency or clearness of the water as well. It relates to who will own the water into the future. We must accept that water is a fundamental human right. According to the World Health Organization, each individual needs between 50 and 100 litres of water to live each day. If we are to accept the UN declaration on the right to water and what it states, surely we have to make sure that right is not diluted by future ownership or by the costing of future unaffordability issues.

While they are both interlinked, the charging is a matter for section 3. Section 2 is about ownership. Senator Bradford outlined very clearly the fact that a simple resolution by both Houses of the Oireachtas could in effect lead to an equity stakeholding to permit outside interests to takeover control of Irish Water whether that be a controlling interest or another level of interest. Given that there will be a worldwide scarcity of water over the next 30 to 40 years, water will be a valuable investment opportunity for speculators and those who might want to export water from Ireland to other jurisdictions.

We are going into uncharted waters, if colleagues will pardon the pun. While I accept his bona fides and acknowledge the work the Minister has done to tidy up the mess left by Phil Hogan, the fundamental issue is the ownership of our water and that has not been tidied up sufficiently. The issue of public ownership of a water supply is fundamental to why people marched on the streets. While they are concerned about the charges, people's opinions should not be reduced to that. People are cleverer than that. The Irish people know the importance of water not only now but for future years. They know there will be a scarcity and they are concerned about the future ownership of the resource.

If we learn anything from other jurisdictions, we should be aware of what happened in England where there are 11 regional monopoly companies dealing with water. In the first ten years of their operation from the late 1980s, they increased the price of water by 100%. In the following ten years, they increased the price of water by a further 102%. Under the Labour Party in England, the British Government wanted to call a halt to spiralling prices and the monopoly situations that existed in each region, but it was too late. The Government under the Prime Minister at the time, Tony Blair, failed because it had gone too far. The establishment had been created and the precedent was there. The Government was unable to go back and reverse what had occurred. That will happen here because in 20 or 25 years Irish Water will still be there in whatever form - public, semi-public or private, no one knows - and in control of the drinking water supply in every domestic or business premises. It will be too late then to break it up and bring it back into public ownership. If we accept that water is a fundamental human right and necessary, according to the World Health Organisation, just to live, this is a fundamental decision that will affect future generations. It is not like food; it is more important than that as it is necessary to live on a daily basis.

We are going down the wrong road and I agree completely with where Senator Barrett is coming from. The steps initially taken by the previous Minister, Phil Hogan, in moving control and the decision making responsibility away from local authorities and councillors was the wrong way to go. It was to take decision making on a precious and scarce resource away from the closest level of democracy and centralise it. One can argue that there are economies of scale and critical mass, but that does not add up when one looks at how much water is being lost. When the Minister was last in the House on 5 November, he outlined that 49% of all water was lost through the pipe network. We do not know how much it costs to produce water as half of what it is produced is lost. In that context, the €1.2 billion which people are currently paying and which we will discuss in relation to section 3 is not an accurate figure. In County Kilkenny, 56% of water is lost and in County Donegal, 43% of water is lost. These are huge losses and the first thing to do is surely to carry out a complete cost-benefit analysis of the network to find out how much water is being lost and what the monetary value of the loss is, and put in place an investment programme funded by borrowings and Exchequer returns contained within the local government sector under the control of the Department of the Environment, Communities and Local Government and the local authority audit section. At least then, decisions would be made locally. Individuals who have a pipe leading up to their houses have to ring a call line with all that goes along with that.

Irrespective of the Minister's best efforts and what he is trying to achieve, we are still going down the wrong road and creating a dangerous situation. There is speculation in the international market looking at investments that will yield returns. According to US investment firms, one of the most lucrative currently is water. Water is deemed to be a necessity but it is also deemed to have investment potential which can yield huge returns if not immediately then in future years. We are going down the road of creating a situation where a majority of Members of Dáil and Seanad Éireann could in future years provide for a lucrative financial position. We have a very party-oriented political structure in Ireland. I am not throwing anything across at any Government party. My party is as much to blame. We have a party system in which the whip rules and, ultimately, those in leadership roles give directions to backbench Deputies and Senators to vote legislation through. We have seen it many times from all parties which have also sought to coerce Independent Members to go with them. It is inevitable that will happen in future when an international investor comes along and offers the billions needed to satisfy interests in certain constituencies to build football fields and other amenities.

We are going down a dangerous road. It is wrong. It is a public water supply currently but we are changing that. Deep down in his own heart, the Minister believes it is the wrong way to go too. He might say that Fine Gael and Labour are not going to change it, but there will be election after election and change after change. Offer after offer will be made and the Minister should be under no illusion about it. There are speculators out there now, some of whom are known to Members, who may be interested in purchasing equity stakes in Irish Water in future because it is about profit. The world revolves around finance. I rest my tuppenceworth at that and ask the Minister even at this late stage to allow a referendum to be held. There is nothing to fear in that. The people are entitled to express their opinion and to allow them to do so would strengthen the Minister's position by allowing him to stand up and say the right to water has been galvanised in the Constitution. It is an opportunity that will be missed if it is not availed of.

Marie Moloney (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister to the House. While I did not have an opportunity to speak on Second Stage yesterday, I will not make a Second Stage speech. Like the Minister and many Senators, I have received abuse on social media and via emails, etc. That is part of what we do and we must accept it when we put our names on ballot papers and sign up for public life.

I listened intently to yesterday's debate, which was like a ping-pong game over and back across the House from Opposition to Government. Many good points were made on both sides of the argument. I believe water should be paid for. I believe we need a utility company to run it but it needs to be run properly. I have seen people get exercised over this, people who would not normally get exercised. I do not think at this stage it is about payment for water. I think it is years and years of austerity having beaten down on people. They have been gradually hit with charge after charge. I think people have reached the point where they can take no more. This is the final straw.

It is not easy to impose a charge on people. However, as the economy grows, it is incumbent on us to put something back into the people's pockets that helps them to pay these charges. The universal social charge should be looked at. I know we have taken 80,000 people out of the universal social charge net, but we need to take many more out of it. It was introduced as a temporary measure. Further changes on the universal social charge would put money back into people's pockets enabling them to pay for these facilities.

In Kerry we have had 18 years of not paying for water. I accept that Labour was party to abolish the water charges back then. We have seen what 18 years of not paying has done for the water in Kerry. The pipes in mid-Kerry are constantly breaking, leaving people without water. Many houses receive their water through lead pipes. There are constant breakdowns at the pumps. All of these have to be paid for when they have to be replaced. We need to get money in to address this.

In the area where I live the cost of water for me is €30 year for the year. I have no sewerage facilities. I have my own bioCycle unit. I have mains water. The charge is €130 for two adults and we will be refunded €100, so the cost for the whole year is €30. I do not think people are on the streets protesting about the €30 but about what it stands for.

For once rural Ireland trumps urban Ireland because the cost to us is less, which does not happen very often. People in rural areas have been paying for water for many years. Many people I talk to are not going on social media, e-mailing, going on the radio and voicing their opinions. They have been paying for it for years and cannot understand what the hype is about. There are two different opinions out there. We hear the ones from the people who are most vocal through the newspapers, television and Internet, but many other people are not.

I believe that water has to be paid for and we have to set up a utility company to provide the service. However, it is the composition of that utility company that has incensed people. Using the word "bonus" at this time is inappropriate. I know the Minister will refer to the increments, which I understand. I know there are workers on low pay who are depending on that. However, the word "bonus" drove people off their heads at a time when they were being hit in their pockets and paying left, right and centre for everything. It is very hard for the public to take that word.

Will the Minister do whatever he has to do to ensure that Irish Water will never be privatised? The Labour Party group here in the Seanad voted to ensure that Irish Water would never be privatised.

Darragh O'Brien (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is not what they voted for.

Marie Moloney (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will wait to hear what he has to say on this.

Darragh O'Brien (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

They called for a referendum and backed down on it.

Marie Moloney (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister should ensure it is watertight - pardon the pun - and that it cannot be privatised at any stage.

Mary Ann O'Brien (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I spoke on the plebiscite on Second Stage to demonstrate how weak that provision is. I echo what Senator Cullinane said and ask the Minister to give us a clear answer to the two black and white questions. Senator Bradford has outlined how an amending Bill can be introduced and within two days the word "plebiscite" would be gone. Senator Bradford also spoke about George Orwell and 1984. I want to talk about the Minister, Deputy Simon Coveney, and 2050. I accept the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Kelly, does not want ever to privatise Irish Water and that he would never do so. However, he will not be here. Senator Reilly will probably be here because she is still in her 20s.

John Gilroy (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I would not say so.

Mary Ann O'Brien (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This is 2050.

Alan Kelly (Tipperary North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is 36 years to 2050; I could be here.

John Whelan (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

He is only a young lad.

Mary Ann O'Brien (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I hope you are all here anyway.

Alan Kelly (Tipperary North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will be 75.

Mary Ann O'Brien (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I would like to quote the Minister, Deputy Coveney, on 2050. He stated:

The global population is forecasted to grow by 2 billion people by 2050 resulting in substantial increased demand for food, while at the same time there will be ever increasing pressure on natural resources such as water and biodiversity. Ireland is fully committed to playing its part in addressing these global challenges whether it be through enhanced production of sustainable and healthy food products.

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator Byrne has indicated to come in again. I call him and ask him to be brief.

Thomas Byrne (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator O'Donnell will be interested in this. The national lottery was not actually sold. The Government issued a licence. Having checked that, I have now submitted a Report Stage amendment. A licence could be issued in the same way the national lottery licence was issued regarding the business and undertakings of Irish Water without having anything to do with section 2 and leaving section 2 completely intact. I ask the Minister to respond to that.

Darragh O'Brien (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have listened to the debate on this section in detail and we debated Second Stage yesterday. I do not want to reiterate-----

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On the amendment, Senator.

Darragh O'Brien (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am talking on the amendment. We will get to the section in a while.

David Cullinane (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We have all day.

John Whelan (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

All year.

Darragh O'Brien (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We take this debate very seriously and the Minister has given his time as well. If the Seanad needs to sit into next week to get this right - it is sitting on Monday - what is the problem?

David Cullinane (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No problem whatsoever.

Darragh O'Brien (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is good to hear.

John Gilroy (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No problem on Thursday either.

Darragh O'Brien (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am glad to hear that. I have listened to Senators Ó Domhnaill and Mary Ann O'Brien. Senator Mullen said yesterday was a momentous day. He made a comparison with the setting up of the ESB, which was crazy and off the chart.

John Gilroy (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Senator's predecessor said at the time-----

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator Darragh O'Brien, without interruption.

Darragh O'Brien (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We have an opportunity on Committee Stage here. While some Senators, who have spoken at length about the importance of not privatising Irish Water, with which I agree completely, had an opportunity to reject the Bill yesterday, unfortunately, for whatever reason they decided not to. There is now a real opportunity to tie into the legislation the absolute necessity for a referendum.

A plebiscite in the Bill does not do it. This amendment is good in that it addresses what is at stake. Senator Barrett will decide as to whether it is to be re-tabled on Report Stage for Monday, but all of us are in agreement with it. If, as I am hearing from colleagues, none of us wants to privatise, and the Minister does not want to see water privatised, we should tie it in by way of a referendum. It is as simple as that.

Alan Kelly (Tipperary North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Senators for their comprehensive contributions. I will go through this amendment and, I dare say, probably this section, because it broadens out into the section as well.
I have a couple of initial comments. I had nothing to do with amendments being ruled out of order. If they were ruled in order, I would debate them as much as I would debate any of these. This is merely to make that clear.
To deal with the amendment first, Ervia is owned by the State. It is owned by the Ministers for Public Expenditure and Reform and Communications, Energy and Natural Resources. It has two subsidiaries, Irish Water and Gas Networks Ireland, which are also owned by the State. Ervia has no financial rights of ownership. These shares are wholly-owned by the Minister for Finance and myself and there is no way that Ervia can dispose of Irish Water because in a sense Ervia does not own it.
I will not be supporting this amendment even though it is put down for the right reasons. I accept all of the amendments, even those ruled out of order, were put down in the right spirit, but I will not be accepting this amendment.
The amendment states it will give functions back to local authorities. This would create issues. There are serious economies of scale in what Irish Water is doing. I quoted yesterday that in the case of the Ringsend plant there is a saving of €170 million because Irish Water is doing that piece of work and there is five or six such examples across the country. There are many economies in tendering. Also, the financial capacity of one utility to borrow is one of the most fundamental reasons Irish Water is necessary because of the scale of investment that is necessary in the future.
The Constitution is something which every one of us holds dear. When I took my seal of office, it is something on which I reflected. I must uphold and protect the Constitution and I always will to the best of my ability. I hope everyone accepts my bona fides in that regard. I am doing everything to the best of my ability, with the advice that I can take, as a member of the Executive.
Bunreacht na hÉireann is the fundamental legal document of the State. It includes the fundamental rights of Irish citizens and establishes and documents the main institutions of State, etc. It describes the legislative branches of the State, including this House, the Executive branch of the State, the Judiciary - the three pillars of the State. It also lists key officers, such as the Attorney General. However, it does not seek to describe the structures of the State which are mainly provided through legislation, for example, the education system, the health system, the road network. In this House I made a commitment, which I honoured, that I would bring the resolution of this House to the Cabinet and state clearly what this House told me and discuss it, and we did in great detail.
Senators will be familiar with Articles 10.1 and 10.2. Article 10.2 states:

All land and all mines, minerals and waters which belonged to Saorstát Éireann immediately before the coming into operation of this Constitution belong to the State to the same extent as they then belonged to Saorstát Éireann.

Martin Conway (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Well said.

Alan Kelly (Tipperary North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I must work, as part of the Executive, within the advice I get and with the terms of that advice as well, and everyone here appreciates that. I come from the Labour Party. We all are politicians at the end of the day. I am a Member of a Government involving Labour and Fine Gael. From my ideology, the idea that we would privatise Irish Water is against everything I stand for. Let me be clear about that.

A couple of colleagues referenced - I do not know whether they quoted them fairly - that there might have been two Senators who stated yesterday that they would privatise Irish Water. That is not what I heard. One of them said maybe in the future but not now and the other wanted a discussion on it. Be that as it may, I have not heard of anyone in these Houses, particularly in the other House, or any of the local authorities - I have been around a lot of those because I am responsible for them - who wants to do this. The Bill provides that this cannot happen and now we are providing that it would need a resolution of this House and the other House, and then it would have to go to a plebiscite of the Irish people. We are stating clearly that this can never happen.

In response to many who have asked, including a number of Senators here, all legislation in the State can be changed. I am a straight talker. All legislation can be changed. However, what future government, no matter who its members are, would change this? I would respectfully say that Senators should have a little more confidence in the fact that the people know whom they vote for. People know whom they vote for and they know what they stand for. If every party in the State states it would not do this, what future government would potentially take away the right of the people to decide on the ownership of water if, which I can never see happening, they were so minded to do it in the first place? What government in its right mind would even consider that? I do not know what public would elect a government to make that decision in the first place. Even if one parks the privatisation of Irish Water, what people would decide to elect a government to take away the right of the people to decide to do something that they never wanted in the first place? It is illogical.

One can trace the line of saying that legislation can be changed. I say it out straight. Of course, legislation can be changed. Senators need not even respond. I am acknowledging that. I am straight up about it. Of course, it can be changed. However, what Government will do that based on this?

The threshold is up at ceiling level.

I also want to repeat, and I did it deliberately. I have been in this House previously and I am not saying this in jest but I have always believed that the best debates, in many ways, come from this House. I deliberately in my response on Second Stage went over this item because I knew it was the item that most people had a lot of interest in and we discussed it before in this House. I have referenced the fact that we went to the Attorney General, we went across Government, took advice and took legal advice and remember the Attorney General, like all the rest of us, is the guardian of this sacred document in this country. Therefore, we have to look at the law of unintended consequences. We should learn lessons, in this space, from other referenda that we had in the past in another area.

If we were going to have a referendum, what would it be on? How would we define it? Would we have to go back at it again and again? Would we be having a referendum on Irish Water? Would we be having a referendum on Irish Water as an organisation? Would we be having a referendum on water services? Would we be having a referendum on water? Would we be having a referendum on water plus something else or what? Those are real questions and I do not say them in jest but honestly.

If we were to have a referendum, what would be the inventory of what we are protecting? Would it include boreholes, private wells, pumps, land which pipes go through, aquifers, group water schemes, infrastructure co-owned by many different people and by different companies, companies' infrastructure, infrastructure owned by commercial organisations that are working and using large quantities of water, that are even producing water and selling it?

Thomas Byrne (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is irrelevant.

Alan Kelly (Tipperary North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is not irrelevant but very real. In fact, it is very important. What is the component of what is protected? What unintended consequences and what issues could potentially arise from this matter? These are very real questions. As regards property rights, which are also protected in the Constitution, there are issues for same.

Let us remember what I said earlier on what is in the Constitution, what usually falls in the Constitution and what does not. If we did this, should we not be doing it for many other areas? I do not ask the following in jest. Should we be doing it in relation to roads, CIE, bogs and a whole range of other areas? Potentially the same argument, in many ways, would stand up for one issue as for another but perhaps not to the same degree because I accept and understand that we cannot live without water and air. I still must pose the question.

The argument has been well made in terms of the surrounding issues say in 20, 30 or 40 years' time.

Mary Ann O'Brien (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister will not be here.

Alan Kelly (Tipperary North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Senator is right that I almost certainly will not be here. I do not think the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Deputy Coveney, will be here either because he is older than me. I will be 75 years old in 2050.

Caít Keane (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Science is always changing.

Marie Louise O'Donnell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Please God.

Mary Ann O'Brien (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister would rather be here.

Alan Kelly (Tipperary North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Senator for her comment.

John Gilroy (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Will he want to be here?

Alan Kelly (Tipperary North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is another question. After the past few months I am not too sure about that but we will see.

Let us be honest about this matter. Do not forget that I sat here in 2008 when we debated the bank guarantee which was one of the most fundamental nights in the history of this State. I personally think the wrong decision was made and voted against it.

People have put forward arguments in relation to Europe. Last night I read Article 345 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union about the principle of neutrality and these issues. I know that will not satisfy everyone and accept that because people will say circumstances can change and all of that but the principle exists.

I want to convey the following. In reaching this decision, trust me, I did not filter all of this down in a flippant way. I filtered all of this down with my colleagues, and with everyone, in a comprehensive way. I probably spent more time on this matter than on most of the Bill put together, to be honest, because it is a fundamental issue.

Marie Louise O'Donnell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is the issue.

Alan Kelly (Tipperary North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Coming from my philosophical beliefs, it is obviously something that has to be 100% accurate and dealt with. Working within all of the advice we can get in Government, I believe that the threshold created absolutely protects Irish Water. I also need to say to Senators that before they put a provision into the Constitution they would need to be absolutely certain it could achieve what it sets out to achieve and dealt with all the issues that I have just said need to be dealt with. Given my role, given my philosophical beliefs, given the fact that I represent the Government, given the fact that I honestly take this matter seriously to the nth degree, given the fact that I have brought what the Senators decided some time ago to the Government, I can tell Senators, absolutely hand on heart and in all conscience, that I have gone as far as is possible in terms of this issue. I hope Members appreciate that and I have said that in the right spirit. I genuinely acknowledge the fact that the amendments, ideas, concepts and proposals put forward by Senators - and I have read the ones that where ruled of out order as well and I would have had no issue dealing with them either - but all were put forward in the right spirit. Through the process that we have undergone, I believe what we have in front of us is as far as we can go and ask Senators to support the legislation. Therefore, I will not accept Senator Barrett's amendment.

David Cullinane (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is very easy for the Minister to come into this Chamber, take to his feet and say what he has said.

Alan Kelly (Tipperary North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It was not that easy.

David Cullinane (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I did not interrupt the Minister and it is time he sat back and listened to the response. He made a lengthy and passionate contribution but, in reality, it was meaningless for the following reasons. It was easy for him to say, as a Minister, as a citizen and as a person, that "over my dead body will our water be privatised". Any Senator in this Chamber could stand up and say exactly the same. This issue is not about the Minister, me, his party, Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, any political party or any Independent but about the process. We have been asked to deal with here a process that could, potentially, allow for the water services to be privatised at some point in time in the future. That is the question.

The Minister also said that he found it very difficult to imagine a set of circumstances in which our water could be privatised. He asked what government in their right mind would privatise our water services.

I am sure six weeks, six months or even six years before the bank guarantee the same question could have been asked. What Government in its right mind would put €90 billion of taxpayers’ money into private banks?

Alan Kelly (Tipperary North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Sinn Féin voted for it in this House.

David Cullinane (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I respectfully ask the Minister to listen to me. He will have a chance again to respond to me. What Parliament in its right mind would put €90 billion of taxpayers’ money into private banks, not public banks, to pay back private bondholders? We emptied the National Pensions Reserve Fund and borrowed money to put into the banks. Leading up to that, no one would have foreseen a set of circumstances in which we socialised the debts of private banks.

It is not, therefore, beyond the realm of possibility that some Government in the future may want to privatise our water services. What the people want is the ultimate protection that the only people who can give permission for our water to be privatised or sold off are the people of the State, not a politician or party. That is the very point the Minister is missing.

I asked the Minister a straight question when I was on my feet the last time but he did not answer it.

Alan Kelly (Tipperary North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I did.

David Cullinane (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No, he did not. I will repeat the question and the Minister might respond. I accept that the Labour Party and the Government do not want to privatise water services at this point. What if, at some point in the future because of an economic crisis, a Government was minded to privatise water? Would it be possible for it to do so? Is it possible for a future Government to introduce an amending Bill to remove section 2?

Alan Kelly (Tipperary North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes. All legislation can be changed, as I told the Senator earlier.

David Cullinane (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is the point.

Alan Kelly (Tipperary North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I answered the Senator’s question, then, if that is the case.

David Cullinane (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Essentially, this is meaningless. All it is is a promise by the Government put into legislation which can be undone by one simple vote of the Oireachtas. Accordingly, the people do not have any say.

Earlier, Senator Lorraine Higgins of the Labour Party said we now have a guarantee that there will be a plebiscite on the ownership of Irish Water. There is no guarantee. This is smoke and mirrors of the worst kind. The Government cannot give that guarantee. The only way such a guarantee can be given is if we have a referendum for an amendment to insert into the Constitution the right of the citizens to make such a fundamental decision. The Minister, along with other Senators, claimed getting the right wording for such an amendment would be a difficult. We had a Constitutional Convention, of which I was a member, that examined difficult and complex issues. It made several recommendations to hold referendums on a range of issues. It properly teased out and ventilated all of the concerns about certain constitutional amendments and any potential unintended consequences that may arise. The Minister could have reinvigorated the Constitutional Convention or a similar forum to properly ventilate all the issues, explore unintended consequences and then come up with a formula of words that would protect our water.

This issue is being made very complicated when, in fact, it is very simple. Senator Bradford made a very good contribution earlier when he essentially said the same. There is no point in any of us here pretending and codding ourselves, because nobody outside this House believes the Government. There is no point in any Independent Senator pretending that, if we pass this Bill today, the concerns people have about privatisation are gone. The people are not silly. The Minister has just conceded that all it would take is a repeal of this section and it is gone. It is all hocus-pocus.

John Gilroy (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator Cullinane knows everything.

David Cullinane (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If we want an absolutely watertight guarantee that our water infrastructure and services will never be privatised, then we need to have a constitutional amendment, not a plebiscite.

It is inevitable that a dynamic will be created once the charge is introduced. When a service is provided free at the point of delivery, funded by progressive taxation, it cannot be privatised, as there is no incentive for anyone to buy it. Once charging starts - once water is commodified - in time, the dynamic changes. That is when the political approach will also change, with huge pressure brought to bear. Then we will hear that we need competition and it is a slippery slope. We have seen this in all the countries that have introduced water charges. One only has to look at Britain, where water services have been privatised because the concept of charges was introduced.

Senator Darragh O’Brien is right that the Minister will no longer be a Minister in two years’ time.

Alan Kelly (Tipperary North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is arrogance.

John Gilroy (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Of course, Senator Cullinane will be the Minister then.

David Cullinane (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will put it differently. It is my view that the Labour Party will not be in government the next time.

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Will Senators please stick to the amendment?

Catherine Noone (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Will the Senator please stick to the amendment?

John Whelan (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Sinn Féin will be in government forever after the next election.

Mary Moran (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Sinn Féin and fairy tale economics.

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator Cullinane without interruption.

Senator Darragh O?Brien:

Instead of having a pop at each other, can we get back to the legislation?

David Cullinane (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Over the past several months, I have detected anger and fear coming from the Labour Party. I appreciate why that is the case.

John Gilroy (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The whole country is terrified of the prospect of Sinn Féin getting into government. There will be plenty of intimidation then.

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator Cullinane without interruption.

David Cullinane (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I understand their fear.

John Gilroy (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The prospect of Deputy Gerry Adams as Tánaiste has put the fear into many.

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Will Senator Cullinane speak on the amendment?

David Cullinane (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If I am allowed to make my point-----

Catherine Noone (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Senator has spoken for long enough to have made his point by now.

David Cullinane (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is easy for the two parties in government to say what they will do now. However, they cannot legislate for what any future Government might do. What Senator Marie-Louise O’Donnell and Independent and Labour Party Senators wanted when they voted for the motion some time ago was a constitutional referendum on the ownership of Irish Water. We are not getting that, however. It does to matter what the Minister says. All the fighting talk from the Minister means nothing if a future Government just tears this Bill up.

The amendment does not propose a constitutional referendum. Those that did have been ruled out of order. Senator Barrett’s amendment only strengthens the plebiscite aspect of this section.

If the Minister accepts that this legislation can be undone, will he agree it is it not worth the paper on which it is written?

Alan Kelly (Tipperary North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Senator might think this legislation is not worth the paper it is written on, but I do not.

Labhrás Ó Murchú (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is something edifying about a Minister who comes into the House showing passion and expressing idealism.

That must be welcomed at any time and we should not distract from or denigrate that in any way. Public life could do with much more of that. I could see the passion he had in expressing his position on changes in the ownership of the water of Ireland in the future, but I remind him that the archives of current affairs programmes are littered with pronouncements like that. People, through no fault of their own - they can do nothing about it - cannot live up to them, and subsequently one finds them being used very often in a method of ridicule with which I do not agree. Very often, through ridicule, they are being shown in a context.

The Minister confirmed what we all believe, which is the most important thing of all: that the plebiscite, when enshrined in legislation, can be changed by any future Government through amendment. That is the bottom line we are dealing with. There is a degree of histrionics about using Bunreacht na hÉireann and holding it aloft. I accept the Minister's credentials and that he has done and will continue to do, what is correct and right as a Minister. However, while we all accept there is a degree of sacredness about that document and sometimes it does put an end to a discussion, the article the Minister read out would tell me that, even if there is some indication within the Bunreacht that the people of Ireland already own the water. One could extend that argument quite easily legally. One elects people to do whatever is required and that ownership by extension is handed over to the people. The Minister might be overly idealistic, if he does not mind me saying so, not to be able to imagine any Government doing what the people do not want. There was an Irish statesman one time who said that when he wanted to know what the Irish people wanted he looked into his own heart.

John Kelly (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Who was that?

Labhrás Ó Murchú (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is all we can do here today, to look into our own hearts.

Diarmuid Wilson (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It was not Phil Hogan.

Labhrás Ó Murchú (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

When I look into my heart, I must agree with Senator Cullinane, whom I admire as a good Tipperary man.

David Cullinane (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Good to hear that.

Labhrás Ó Murchú (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

When I look into my heart on the plebiscite, I see a contradiction straight away. If the Minister was happy that the Bunreacht provides us with a safeguard, then there is no need for the plebiscite in the first place.

David Cullinane (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Exactly.

Labhrás Ó Murchú (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If that is the case, is it merely a cosmetic exercise? If the Minister looks into his own heart, which I am sure he is doing regularly, he knows that people do not want a cosmetic exercise. The anger, the suspicions and the lack of trust are real. Senator John Crown made the point yesterday that we are not talking about any single lobby group. We are talking about the middle ground. We are not talking about extreme lefts or rights or anything else. Senator Cullinane and I know it in Tipperary as we listen.

That is why the debate on Senator Barrett's amendment is so important. We cannot argue for a constitutional referendum, but surely given the logic of what he is suggesting, even if it is only to shore up the plebiscite and subsequent legislation in a minimalist way, the Minister would have to accept what he has put forward. I do not hear much party politics at all, in this Chamber, buíochas mór le Dia, but I must say this: if the Minister had heard what we were saying on the plebiscite and admits the weakness of that plebiscite and its supporting legislation, surely he would be very pleased to go back to the Cabinet and to the drawing board and take what is being put forward. The fact that this is not the case and he is not open to doing that is worrying and adds to the lack of trust and the suspicion that is out there at the moment.

I have no doubts about the Minister's credentials. I do not know how he took on the task. The Government has an unenviable job to do. I must say that. We all want pure water. We also want to ensure the availability of that water and its conservation. We must pay for it. None of these are the issue here. The methodology that has been used from the first time that legislation came into the Dáil has been the problem. If there is one lesson I have learned from the people of Ireland, it is that they are quite astute. They listen very carefully. They took their time on protesting, but now they begin to realise that whatever is put before us now must be questioned because there is a possibility that in a very short time, even under a new Government, we will be back here debating this again. The bottom line must be that the plebiscite is minimalist at best. The constitutional situation must be looked at very clearly, but I do not at all accept that we should balk at the idea of harvesting the view and the sentiments of the public because it is difficult, or that we are not capable as legislators, with all the legal advice and help that we have.

What do we say to the people? The Minister tends to intimate that a constitutional referendum is a good idea, but that as a democratic, sovereign, independent state, we are not capable of harvesting that sentiment and that requirement. I do not believe he meant it like that, but that is how I heard it and that worries me as well. That is why we are here as legislators - to pool our expertise, our intelligence and our experience on the ground, to reflect the views of the public and to use every agency at our disposal to do what the people want. I hope the Celtic tiger has not taken that tenacity from the Irish character. I do not believe it has. I believe it is still possible to capture what the people want and enshrine it in Bunreacht na hÉireann and then to debate ends at that stage.

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I call on Senator Byrne.

Thomas Byrne (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

My colleague may have a proposal.

Darragh O'Brien (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister is perfectly entitled to a break and he should have one. Could we propose a sos for half an hour?

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I can only accept proposals from the Leader of the House.

Darragh O'Brien (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Perhaps the Acting Leader of the House proposes-----

Caít Keane (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Order of Business was agreed and if the Senator needs a sos, I am sure he can swap with one of his-----

Thomas Byrne (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It was not agreed.

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator Byrne, without interruption.

Thomas Byrne (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Sorry, Senator Moran has walked into the debate recently and with all due respect, some of us-----

Mary Moran (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I beg the Senator's pardon. I was sitting there.

Thomas Byrne (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

For the last while, yes.

Mary Moran (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

For the last three quarters of an hour.

Thomas Byrne (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are here since 10 p.m. We are here for four hours.

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I call on Senator Byrne to speak on the amendment.

Mary Moran (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The debate began at 12 p.m.

Mary Moran (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is not a contest. I would ask that Senator Byrne withdraw the personal remarks made against me immediately.

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I ask the Senator to withdraw the remarks in the interests of harmony in the House.

Thomas Byrne (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Senator has confirmed what I said. She confirmed what I said, that she came in three quarters of an hour ago.

Mary Moran (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are here for a debate, not to make personal comments about people and I would ask that those comments be withdrawn immediately.

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator Byrne, without interruption.

Thomas Byrne (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thought the proposal of my colleague was perfectly reasonable, but if the other side does not see that, that is fine.

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is the Senator withdrawing the-----

Thomas Byrne (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No, I want to speak. If the other side is not agreeing with me-----

Mary Moran (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I would like to go on the record that I find that really offensive-----

Thomas Byrne (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is already on the record.

Mary Moran (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----that those remarks are not being removed and that the Cathaoirleach has not instigated that they should be removed.

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The record will show. Senator Byrne, without interruption.

Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On a point of order, the Minister has just got a break and he is well entitled to it. His officials have been sitting there as long as him and they are entitled to a break

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator Byrne without interruption, please. It is up to the Leader of the House to make a proposal to the House.

Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am asking the Leader to do that.

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator Byrne without interruption.

Fidelma Healy Eames (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On a point of order, I am very uncomfortable with the response to Senator Mary Moran's request.

Mary Moran (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Senator.

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The record of the House will show-----

Fidelma Healy Eames (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I think, in fairness-----

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator, resume your seat, please.

Fidelma Healy Eames (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----this type-----

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator, resume your seat, please.

Fidelma Healy Eames (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We need respect, and that respect has not been acknowledged by the person delivering the comment.

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Resume your seat, please. I call Senator Byrne on amendment No. 1.

Thomas Byrne (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator Cullinane raised the issue of the bank guarantee. Who could have imagined us taking on those debts? Who could have imagined an Irish Government would have to do that? If it had been prohibited by the Constitution they might not have done that, but the reality is that if someone had made that proposal 30 years ago, we would have had the same answers that the Minister who was sitting there gave us. What Irish Government would do this?

Thomas Byrne (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I refer to the issue of taking part in EU defence missions. What Irish Government would take us into war? What Irish Government would have us involved in conscription? We changed the Constitution in order to allay the fears of the Irish people in that regard. We introduced the triple lock under the United Nations mandate, and approval of the Dáil and this House is required before we enter into EU defence mechanisms. This is normal. The law of unintended consequences is not a law. In fact, many of the consequences of the Eighth Amendment - I support the Eighth Amendment - were outlined in the Dáil and Seanad debates at the time and are available to be read. Some of the issues that arose as a result of that amendment were predicted. They were not all unintended consequences. People opposed it and were cautious about that amendment. It is well known that there were changes to the amendment and that the Government had concerns, both in the Fianna Fáil party and in the Fine Gael party at the time. If the law of unintended consequences is now considered by the Government as a reason for not amending the Constitution, then we would never have a Constitution in the first place and nothing would ever be changed in case someone would interpret it differently in the future. As a Legislature all we can do is to do our best to encapsulate the values which are permanent and unchangeable except with the consent of the people. This section does not do this. The more I read the section, the more I regard it as minimalist - as Senator Ó Murchú said - because it only talks about the alienation of shares in Irish Water; it does not talk about the sale, lease, letting or licensing of those shares or of the business or assets of Irish Water. As I said previously, the national lottery was effectively privatised by simply issuing a licence to a private company to operate it. Who would have imagined, in the Labour Party of the 1980s - which was in government with Fine Gael and which established the national lottery at the end of its term - that a private company would be asked to run it and to take the profits from it? The then Minister - it may have been Barry Desmond, but I cannot remember, as I was only a child at the time, like the Minister, Deputy Kelly, and the Minister of State, Deputy Coffey - who introduced the national lottery, had he been faced with Senator O'Donnell, as someone who has expressed trenchant views about the privatisation of the lottery, would have given the same answer that the Minister, Deputy Kelly, gave, which is "Who could have imagined it?". The issue of the national lottery is not an issue of principle for me, as it is for Senator O'Donnell, but she is entitled to her view and she has expressed it eloquently. She would have been given the same answer at the time by the then Minister, which was "What Irish Government would do this?", but 30 years later it was done. I have no particular difficulty on that issue. However, we are looking at 30 and 40 years down the road. We are looking at those values that set us apart as a society, the values we hold dear.

The minimum change I am looking for, which does not really change the substance of it, is to have the water forum at least discuss this issue and bring forward recommendations to the Minister and for the Minister to report back. This is the proposal in my amendment. I ask the Government to consider my amendment. At the very least, it gives the forum a substantial job to do, and there is a precedent in the Constitutional Convention.

John Gilroy (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister has said more than half a dozen times here that he accepts the good faith in which these arguments are made. It is very ungenerous, in particular, of my Sinn Féin colleagues, not to afford the same sincerity to the Minister. Senator Cullinane said it was easy for the Minister. It is not a bit easy for a Minister to come in here. This is the biggest mess that has happened in a generation, apart from what ye lads did - ye created it-----

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator Gilroy without interruption.

John Gilroy (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I wish to comment on a point made by Senator Ó Murchú when he said the Minister sounded very idealistic. What is wrong with that? It is better than some of the old cynicism we are hearing from the lads over there. I am not referring to Senator Ó Murchú as being cynical, because I know he is not. However, plenty of his people are cynical.

Fidelma Healy Eames (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

He actually complimented the Minister.

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator Gilroy without interruption.

John Gilroy (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is a thing to be praised, not criticised, and I apologise if I misinterpreted what the Senator said. Here in this House some time ago we voted in favour of holding a referendum. I voted in favour. I thought it was a good idea at the time. We discussed this matter long and hard in the Labour Party and with the Minister and his officials. Having explored the possibility of holding a referendum, it turns out that it is not the simple thing I, for one, thought it to be at the time. There are many unintended consequences, as the Minister said. For instance, there is the question of pipes going through private land or privately owned treatment plants or water pumps, which leads to a discussion on the rights of private property, which in this country are held very dear. If it was agreed to have a referendum and that referendum was not passed - it may be an outrageous suggestion, but who would have thought a year ago that the Seanad would not be abolished? Everyone was of the opinion-----

Darragh O'Brien (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is why we argued against it.

John Gilroy (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I remember having conversations with many people in this House around Christmas before the referendum, and it was universally held by every speaker who contributed to the informal meeting in the ante-room that the Seanad was a cooked goose. Everyone was of that view, so who would have predicted that-----

John Gilroy (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I make the suggestion that if we did have a referendum and that referendum failed, the unintended consequences would be that some Government in the future might use that to achieve the exact objective we are trying to prevent and to argue that the Irish people have spoken in a referendum about public ownership of Irish Water and have rejected it, so the Irish people are obviously in favour of it. What if that were to be the future scenario? These are some of the dangers and risks and challenges that face us if we go to the Constitution to secure the rights of something. I refer to the rights under the Eighth Amendment and the absolute mess that has caused. It is the most divisive thing in Irish society - perhaps not now, but it has been in the past. Although it was flagged that there were problems associated with it, it was well-meaning, but it has caused huge division and controversy in Irish society over the years.

During a debate on the Order of Business some time ago, I thought it would be an easy thing to support a referendum to change the Constitution in order to support the public ownership of Irish Water. While we are all in favour of public ownership of Irish Water, in my view, a referendum is not the way to go. It is a basic tenet of democracy that no government can legislatively bind its successor, but we have to have some confidence in our politicians and in the electorate who vote for them, to say that they will take the decisions in the best interests of the Irish people.

There is one further guarantee we could get. Senator Cullinane and others say that the Labour Party and Fine Gael will not be in government next time. Will Irish Water be sold in the next 18 months? What about the boys on the other side? God help us if they get into government. Why do they not give a commitment in a programme for Government that the very first thing-----

Darragh O'Brien (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is part of our policy.

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator Gilroy without interruption.

John Gilroy (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Fianna Fáil and Sinn Féin - God help us. Would there be anything left in the economy within 12 months if both of those parties were in power together? A referendum certainly seemed a good idea to me when we were voting here two months ago or six weeks ago.

However, when we reflected on the intricacies and logistics of holding a referendum that would achieve the objective everyone hopes would be achieved, it was not as simple as it appeared. As well as considering practical options in this regard, the Minister has explored this option; the Attorney General has given legal advice, while the officials have given practical advice, which shows that it is not the simple option being proposed. That is all I wish to say, except that, of course, I support section 2 and believe that while holding a plebiscite is not ideal, it is as far as the Government can move on the issue.

Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Before I turn to the Bill, I note that the Leader has returned to the Chamber. I ask him to consider breaking for a few minutes to facilitate the officials. While one official has just come into the Chamber, another has been sitting there for as long as the Minister and he is entitled to a break. I would expect this for any employee at any time. Will the Leader consider doing this before I speak? If that is the case, I will speak immediately afterwards.

Maurice Cummins (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Members agreed to the Order of Business and I have no intention of changing it.

Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I find that regrettable-----

Darragh O'Brien (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Fianna Fáil Members did not agree to the Order of Business; the House did.

Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This morning I asked a question about the establishment of a company called Uisce Éireann or Irish Water Limited which was established in October in Wales. I would be grateful if the Minister of State were to advise me whether that company had been set up by Irish Water in Ireland or whether it had been set up by a director or person associated with it. I wish to establish whether there is any relationship with that company.

I will revert to the issue of a referendum and some of the arguments brought forward with respect to the difficulty with it. Senator John Gilroy has just adverted to the pipe structure through private land. I note that Bord Gáis Energy has overcome this problem; therefore, it is not an issue. All such private property issues can be resolved.

John Gilroy (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In a referendum.

Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In Ireland the Office of the Attorney General is paid to give advice and I am sure it could find a way to come up with a wording that would meet all of the doubts the Labour Party has. I am delighted its members have doubts about the way in which the wording of a constitutional amendment might be brought forward because the example of what happened with the eighth amendment to the Constitution demonstrates how much a job can be made of this. I have never viewed the Constitution as a place in which to deal with certain issues, as it is too cumbersome. However, on the issue of property, property rights and, in particular, the right of the people of Ireland to own their own water, it is not too cumbersome for it and I have not heard an argument to support that view.

My colleague, Senator Thomas Byrne, recently observed that there was nothing to stop the new company from licensing its services. There is nothing to prevent it from bringing in a subcontractor for the production of water. There is nothing to stop it from introducing a subcontractor for the maintenance of the country's water infrastructure.

John Gilroy (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That does not affect the ownership of Irish Water.

Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It does not matter. If such a subcontractor fails in its job, we will not have water services. Consequently, I am not at all satisfied with the manner in which things are going.

My colleague, Senator David Cullinane, asked for the withdrawal of section 2 in its entirety and that is not a bad idea. Let Members get rid of the plebiscite proposal totally and return the Bill to the Dáil. Before it proceeds any further, Members should instigate or initiate a Bill for the holding of a referendum on the ownership of Irish Water. I reiterate that the expertise to do this already resides within the Government which suggests a plebiscite would protect us. Were the European Union to decide at some stage that competition law was not being met with respect to the ownership of Irish Water, would it protect us? Can the Minister guarantee that the European Union will not, at some point in the future, use competition law to force this country to sell off part or all of Irish Water or the company to have a subsidiary private company to produce water or to have private companies maintain the water supply? While the Minister argues that this cannot happen, I refer to the Lisbon treaty, the Lisbon 2 treaty and all of the other re-runs during the years and I am not at all satisfied. In fairness to the Minister of State and his senior ministerial colleague, they are trying desperately hard in a desperately hard situation. At this point, I compliment the Members on the Government side who took an extremely difficult decision to support section 2 yesterday, as did a number of Independent Members, who have received the most horrendous backlash for their vote yesterday. That is unfair because people do what they believe is right. Members must acknowledge this and one must admire them for doing so.

I constantly hear about how no Government ever will do this or that. The only thing of which one can be sure and certain is the moment or second in which one is living. In two seconds time I could be dead, as could anybody in the Chamber. It is possible that in one year's time, no political party currently represented in the Chamber will be in government. Members must protect the system of water in public ownership and enshrine this in the Constitution. That is the only way in which they can be sure it will happen. I again tell the Minister of State that the Government must stop. It has already angered the entire population, including ordinary, decent people who would never take to the streets and never get involved in any protest. The Government has angered them to the point where they are turning out in their tens of thousands at the drop of a hat. This is only going to get worse and the Government should move to try to appease them by dealing with some of the problems. The easiest way to do this would be to enshrine this in the Constitution. At this point, I have not received an answer from the Minister of State that would satisfy me on any issue Members have raised and perhaps he might have a sos. He should go outside to have a chat and find a way to answer these questions.

Paschal Mooney (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister of State is welcome. A common theme throughout the Committee Stage debate on this section and the amendments and throughout the entire debate is trust. As Senator Labhrás Ó Murchú has referred to this issue in some detail, I will not go over old ground. However, the overwhelming majority of the more than 4,000 e-mails I have received in recent days about this issue were certainly about whether the Government could be trusted not to privatise Irish Water. Essentially, I suggest this is at the core of all of the arguments being made in respect of the holding of a constitutional referendum. While listening to Senator Gerard P. Craughwell and after talking to Senator Thomas Byrne, I could not help but reflect on the various State utilities that had been created since the foundation of the State. Since Ireland joined the European Union, nearly all of them have been deregulated. The European Union, effectively, has forced Ireland to deregulate in the telecommunications sector and I was in the House for the debate on the legislation which was passed to deregulate it. Similarly, the electricity sector has been deregulated to a large degree. What is there to say about Irish Water in the future? It, unquestionably, will be successful or else it will disappear and go into bankruptcy and neither the Government nor a Government of similar ideology would allow this to happen. What would be the scenario were the European Union to state Irish Water was anti-competitive or not compliant with anti-trust regulations and that, therefore, the Government must deregulate it and sell off some of its services? I note that the Government decided to sell off elements of Bord Gáis Energy to generate money.

Are Members on the Government side surprised that there should be such massive distrust and a disconnection between swathes of the people and the Government on this issue? That is the message I am getting and it is sad because, in a way, it is a matter of some concern for Members as democrats on all sides of the House. To put it in another way, a Government governs with the consent of the people and if it does not have that consent, democracy is in danger. That is at the core of this issue and while it may sound somewhat melodramatic, the trends that have been developing in Irish society in the past year or two are a source of great concern. Now that it is being reflected in a mass movement across the country - despite suggestions on the Government side of the House that it is being orchestrated by one particular grouping or ideology - it is a fact of life that the ordinary, common people of Ireland have come together and are united on this one issue.

They do not believe the Government when it says it will not privatise Irish Water. They might be prepared to give some concession to the current Government's promise not to privatise it but what about the future? The same question arises in respect of charges. They are being frozen until a certain date but what will happen after that? This is all bound up with the banking debt which continues to hang over our heads. The distrust began to emerge when people asked themselves how they ended up in a situation whereby their children will be responsible for paying off this money. These issues have all come together under the heading of Irish Water but the distrust of the Government and even the democratic process grows from a wider base. For this and other reasons, the Government should be alert to the dangers of going down the road of a plebiscite. It seems to me the worst of all possible worlds. As Senator Byrne and others have observed, it is meaningless because it will not address the concerns about privatisation. I acknowledge that the Minister has come a long way in listening to the people but we are dealing with a huge movement on this issue. In my entire career in public life, I have never before received so many communications on an issue as I have on this one. Even the pro-life issue did not give rise to as many communications. I have replied to people in my own constituency but it would be impossible to reply to everybody. It is the same answer in many cases because I understand a certain website allowed people to use templates. I also received replies to my own responses. If it was a party motivated movement, it would be most unlikely that people would bother replying to me.

As has been pointed out time and again, the plebiscite is not going to resolve this distrust. A disconnect between the people and their government is an extremely serious issue in any democracy. I wish it were otherwise because I do not think it will reflect well on any of us as we head in to an election over the next 15 months. We are already seeing the rise of Independents and independent issues. There is nothing wrong with those who were elected to these House. The people are sovereign. They decide who will be elected. However, people are elected not just because the single issues for which they stand but also due to a continuing disconnect with the mainstream parties. I do not want to labour the argument but I am trying to give another view on the arguments against section 2 and the holding of a plebiscite. The Government should pause and reflect on the outcome of this provision.

Senator Byrne gave the best example of what might happen when he cited to the triple lock introduced after the Nice referendum. The Nice treaty had nothing whatsoever to do with militarism. It was nothing more than a housekeeping exercise at European level. I will argue that against all comers because I was actively involved in the campaign. Somehow, a significant number of voters got it into their heads that there was a military dimension to the treaty and that their sons and daughters would be joining a European army. Twelve years on, I have heard nothing about a European army. At the time, however, I met mothers in my own town who genuinely believed their sons and daughters would be conscripted into a European army. They voted against the treaty on that basis. The Government was forced to reassure the people by vesting authority in the United Nations and the Houses of the Oireachtas. That was the most controversial issue and, once it was addressed, the people accepted the treaty. That is what I believe is going to happen with this plebiscite, and I urge the Government to withdraw this section and return to the drawing board.

Fidelma Healy Eames (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Ghandi once said that the future depends on what we do today. Our future depends on what we do today about water. I accept the assurances offered by the Minister and this Government that they will not privatise water but that is not the point. The Minister will not be there forever. Any measure we put into the Statute Book should be strong enough to prevent unintended consequences in the future. Given that legislation can always be changed, the only way to prevent privatisation is by offering the Irish people an opportunity to put it into the Constitution. We are all saying the same thing but what problem are we trying to solve? Water and its sources should remain in public ownership and in the hands of Irish people in perpetuity. We all agree that is what we want to achieve but we disagree about the best way to achieve it.

At times like this, it is a pity that we did not have political reform. The whip should have been lifted because I am sure a number of Fine Gael and Labour Party Senators who do not want to introduce any sort of risk of privatising water into our Statute Book. We are leaving the door open to privatisation. Senator Gilroy put forward valid arguments about how we would handle water passing through private property but Senator Craughwell observed that we have already addressed this issue with gas lines. What about European competition law? Senator Heffernan outlined interesting figures yesterday which revealed that after the grants and subventions to Irish Water, its revenue would be €60 million per annum even if everyone signed up. What infrastructure would that fund? If only 50% pay, Irish Water will be in the red. If Irish Water is in the red, it definitely will be open to privatisation. Please think again. All we are trying to do is protect water as a resource, as well as its sources, including Lough Corrib, the River Shannon and lakes in the midlands. Why would we leave even the slightest doubt that they could be taken over?

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I support the amendment proposed by Senator Barrett. Unfortunately I was unable to speak on Second Stage and I do not intend to make a Second Stage speech now. Issues have been raised include the unintended consequences and the provisions of our Constitution. The Constitution is not cast iron that can never be changed.

The Constitution is not a cast-iron thing set in stone that can never be changed. So many things have changed in the 78 year period since 1937. I will not go into the history, but at that time about 60% of the Irish economy was based on agriculture. That has totally turned on its head. Another simple point is that at that time, according to statistics and figures, 3% of the children of this nation were born outside wedlock. That is well over 30% now. Somebody mentioned the unintended consequences of enshrining the right to water in our Constitution. I see no difficulty whatsoever in doing that. I have been listening as carefully as I can to the debate and I respect what the various people say. Somebody referred to the right to property, which is enshrined in our Constitution. Maybe there should be a rethink of that.

I was chairman of a committee on the Constitution which, to make it as broad as possible, we enlarged to 16 members. I requested the then Taoiseach, former Deputy Bertie Ahern, to do that in order to be inclusive. We brought in an Independent Member of the Oireachtas, a member of the Green Party and a member of Sinn Féin. My colleague up in County Louth was on that committee just to have it all-inclusive. The man who was our advisor at that time was probably the greatest exponent of constitutional rights and knowledge in this country, Mr. Justice Gerard Hogan. It is being seen here as impossible to enshrine the right to water in the Constitution. I have heard Mr. Justice Hogan and other constitutional experts say that maybe we should expand and look again at the Kenny report.

The right to property was watered down in a local government Act which allowed for social housing needs. Maybe we should think outside the box. What about the right to shelter and housing? We should not be buried in the back of what cannot be done, but should look at what can be done. We had a big debate recently on homelessness when somebody died close to this House. We should be looking outside the box and seeing how we can make our Constitution more appropriate for 2027 rather than 1937. The Minister of State should stand back, have a referendum in April or May, and instead of the potential of this Bill kicking in on 1 January or 1 February, it can be put back to 1 June or 1 July. Then we can put this thing to bed for once and for all.

Brian Ó Domhnaill (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Hear, hear.

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator Craughwell mentioned earlier that when the gas pipelines were brought from Kinsale all over the country that was not a difficulty. There was a piece of legislation tailored to meet that. A simple amendment to the Constitution could uphold and enshrine the basic right to water, then that could be regulated by law.

Fidelma Healy Eames (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Hear, hear.

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is not saying that we cannot go left or right. We even looked at an example as well as a corollary in the notion - which I still think is necessary for this city - of providing an underground train from the city centre out to the airport. In doing that we looked at every person who has a house, a barn or a commercial building from here to the airport. Every person who owns a piece of property owns the land right down to the core of the earth and the air up into the sky as far as possible, even going down 5,000 feet. We looked at the possibility that, like in Spain and other countries, the amount of territory under the house that is part of the property - subject to doing no structural damage - should be no more than ten metres. All these possibilities can be done.

It is not my style to be in any way derogatory against the Minister, Deputy Kelly, or the Minister of State, Deputy Coffey, but I must put on record that this provision in the Bill about a plebiscite, however well meant, is a political manoeuvre. It is intended to indicate to the thousands of people that have not alone e-mailed and phoned us but have come out and marched. That is probably 250,000 people altogether, the biggest movement since Daniel O'Connell back a couple of hundred years ago. By ignoring that the Government is saying look, this is going to satisfy them, it has already been seen to. The Government is under the impression that by putting this section 2 into new legislation it will ease the minds of lots of people. I think it is disingenuous and that the Government should go back. This was not agreed by the Dáil, it was agreed because the guillotine was used. It was forced on the Dáil; Members had to come in and the Whip was cracked. As a member of a party I know that feels and I know how it feels to break it as well.

Thomas Byrne (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

He does.

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

A lot of people in this House may not realise that under our Constitution we have a right to light. Which is more important? We have a right to support, so that our houses do not fall down. We must remember why the right to property was devised in our Constitution. It was to support the landed gentry, the settlers and the rich people. How many people in the street in Dublin have nothing at all to their name? Look at the people in mortgage difficulties at the minute, and banks repossessing, what have those people to their name only headaches, problems and stress?

I sincerely ask the Government to go back and defer this, it is not going to kill off the Bill. I am not going to go into the amount of money involved, the amount of the charges, the propriety of Irish Water or the catastrophe in setting it up and how badly it has been handled - probably disastrously handled - for the last months. I think we should step back from the brink and bring the proposal through the Dáil for a referendum. There are already suggestions from a number of Ministers - maybe the Cabinet is not agreed on it - that there will be a multiplicity of referenda held possibly in April or May. This could also be incorporated into that.

Fidelma Healy Eames (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Hear, hear.

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If we are naive enough to go with this----

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On a point of order, while I find this debate immensely entertaining, diverting and enlightening, I regret that so few of my colleagues are here to be enriched by the experience, so can I ask for a quorum?

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We have a quorum. Senator O'Donovan, continue please.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Do we have a quorum?

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes we have.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What is a quorum?

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Eleven

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

One, two, three, four, five, six, seven----

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator O'Donovan.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Eight, nine, ten, eleven. Oh, what a pity.

Maurice Cummins (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If we are going to start this now----

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I must thank Senator Norris for the brief intervention to draw my breath but also----

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Senator's words are exquisitely riveting---

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am just making the point that I would prefer to have a referendum. I am supporting Senator Barrett's amendment because there are all sorts of possibilities out there. As we saw in the referendum to abolish the Seanad, the public are no fools. I personally thought that would succeed but they were put to the vote and they decided listen, we cannot trust the boys in the lower House. We want another House to keep an eye on what is going on. We are here to act as a hand brake to the system. For anybody out there to think there is a promise of a plebiscite in legislation, however sincerely meant, whenever a Government comes in of whatever hue or colour in ten or 15 years, by one simple debate in the Dáil and Seanad they can, as Senator Byrne suggested, have that section deleted in two sitting days. That is important to put on the record.

If we really want to put the status of the Senate in a better place - maybe we are there already - we should be seriously looking. It is something I said 15 years ago in this House about upgrading our Constitution. The 1937 Constitution with all due respect is not fit for 1917 or 1916. We are in a different society for many reasons.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

But it written after 1916.

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Well 1937, whichever, but I am saying it is not fit for 2016. My apologies. I think we should enshrine the right to water in the referendum and I am asking that, if Senator Barrett's amendment is not accepted or agreed to by Government side, we defer this Bill.

I am so far away from my little abode in west Cork that I might as well stay here tomorrow, Sunday, if it is possible, and Monday and Tuesday.
If we want to deliver proper legislation and if we are to be honest with ourselves, look into our hearts and be honest with the people who are marching - people who cannot afford to pay mortgages and who cannot have a happy Christmas because they have nothing in their pockets - we should be here, and say, with regard to this notion of having a promised plebiscite on legislation, that it is pie in the sky. Let us step back from the brink, and this legislation can kick in on 1 June next year.
This legislation has been held up for over 12 months. The reason it was held up for over 12 months is we have lengthy debates. I spoke ad nauseumin this House when the Bill was introduced before Christmas and, to be honest about it, at least the Minister of State, Deputy Coffey, his colleagues who have been here and the Minister, Deputy Kelly, are listening. They are engaging with us. I remember comments made by Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill. The chickens have come home to roost. We were not listened to, like a hoo ha. They thought what of the Senate. It will be gone next year. We are going to abolish it; now we will move into the Dáil, the real Chamber. The Taoiseach got a wallop. If this matter is not sorted out properly - I am not getting into the ratio about charges or their propriety - the greatest wallop of all is going to come. I have got wallops myself politically on many occasions, from my own crowd and from the people. The greatest wallop of all is going to come, but the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste are not prepared for it. This will not go away. I am saying they should step back from the brink. The Government should either accept Senator Barrett's very genuine amendment or alternatively defer this issue and have the referendum in the spring of next year.

Brian Ó Domhnaill (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Hear, hear.

Fidelma Healy Eames (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Hear, hear.

Ned O'Sullivan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Like Senator O'Donovan, I forewent my opportunity to contribute on Second Stage yesterday due to the exigencies of the debate. I do not wish to produce the same speech that I had prepared but there are two points I would like to get across while speaking to the amendment.

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Coffey, back to the House. Many people have said that he and the senior Minister, Deputy Kelly, have inherited an almighty mess and they are doing the best they can to straighten it out. I sometimes feel I can almost hear and see Commissioner Hogan over in Brussels, as he moves onwards and upwards, chuckling at the dilemma he created for them and the mischievous smile he must have on his face. That is the way things are and the whole thing has been one hell of a hames from start to finish. There was a lot of controversy and hoo-ha, when Fianna Fáil was in government, at the time of the voting machines. It turned out to be a costly error. I remember the Fine Gael speakers at the time being particularly scathing. That is a hill of beans compared to this particular situation we are in now.

There is no doubt about it; the people have spoken. They have spoken in a new way. There is a new type of politics in the country. They are no longer speaking through their Dáil representatives. They are speaking with their feet and with their placards. To a certain extent, democracy in practice is always to be welcomed. However, I have to temper that by saying that I believe that parliamentary democracy is supreme and shall always be supreme.

I seem to have cleared out all my own benches here.

Some of the activities of the protesters - including some of the TDs, who have the unique privilege of being in Dáil Éireann to make their point on behalf of constituents but who seem to prefer to leave the precincts of the House and to go to some place with a megaphone under an oxter-----

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am sorry to interrupt my distinguished friend, who did so generously yield, but I am concerned that not sufficient of my colleagues are here to gather up the pearls of wisdom that are being so profusely spread on the floor of this august Chamber.

Maurice Cummins (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Let the House and the country know they have walked out of the House.

Ned O'Sullivan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I think my colleagues have gone out to confer on the gravity of the situation and probably to reflect on some of the words of wisdom and on what I have just pronounced upon here.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We can continue when we get a quorum.

Ned O'Sullivan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will not belabour the House. It is late in the year and we have had quite a lot of debate on the airwaves, on the television and in the national print, and it was morning, noon and night. I was just making the point about the new type of democracy we are seeing in Ireland. It is a new phenomenon. It is interesting in one way and it is worrying in another. If parliamentary democracy fails the people, the people will find a way of getting their point of view across. We saw some very unpleasant events. I think I was the first Opposition spokesperson in either of the Houses to condemn the disgraceful behaviour and manner in which the Tánaiste was treated in Jobstown, and also the Taoiseach in the same week. It is a sad day, if that will be tolerated, particularly where it is tolerated and almost condoned by elected Members of the Lower House. This is something we have to worry about.

Marie Louise O'Donnell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Hear, hear.

Ned O'Sullivan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Gabhaim mo bhuíochas leis an Seanadóir. There was a famous debate in 1948 when another coalition debacle led by Fine Gael, the mother and child scheme, was being debated. De Valera was the Leader of the Opposition, and at the end of it -----

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Senator is moving away from the amendment.

Ned O'Sullivan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Just a small bit. De Valera was giving the final speech on behalf of the then Opposition. People were expecting a big long Churchillian kind of a speech from Dev and all he said was, "I think we have heard enough". People have heard enough from us. They have spoken first. The question is whether the Government has heard the message. Has the Taoiseach and his Cabinet finally got the message that the people are giving them? Have they come up with the right solution? I have said it before and I concede that they have made the best fist they could of it. One cannot make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. Senator Barrett's amendment has great merit in it. It would help to allay the genuine concerns of the public. At the end of the day, they will have the final say if there is to be a constitutional referendum. That would be seen as a safeguard and would answer the worries people have that the political system currently is failing them.

The provision of water services, historically, has been a bit of a mess, and I acknowledge it did not start with this Government. I was a shopkeeper for many years in the provincial town of Listowel, County Kerry, and I had to pay water rates although I had barely a washbasin in the premises, as I lived in my private home. There were families with seven and eight children four or five doors down the street and they were using what water there was in the country and not paying anything for it. There was every kind chicanery going on, with people piping water from one person's supply to their own supply in order to escape payment. Clearly, madness has prevailed in the water services area for a long time. At least this Bill is attempting to put some shape on things, but it is not perfect. I call on the Minister of State, Deputy Coffey, a former great colleague of ours, and the Minister, Deputy Kelly, to find some way of answering the genuine fears of the people.

The only reason I would consider voting for this Bill - although I cannot and will not vote for it - is that I am not happy with the activities of some of those who are most violently opposed to it. Reference was made to the way our communications system has been held up over the last week, with Members getting an average of 200, 300 or 400 e-mails per day on their iPhones and other systems.

Marie Louise O'Donnell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Abusive.

Ned O'Sullivan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are sick of them. As I was trying to delete them yesterday, however, I found that I had deleted some important and valid representations from my own county of Kerry. I am sure others may also have experienced that. I found out that there is a way of dealing with those particular e-mails.

Terry Brennan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is a way.

Ned O'Sullivan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

One learns something every night one goes out. I have learned a good deal like that, as has Senator Brennan.

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator O'Sullivan is trying to conclude, and Senators should not impede him from doing so.

Ned O'Sullivan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will conclude on that note. I wish everybody here a happy Christmas.

Thomas Byrne (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I wish to make a few points in response to what the Minister said. He read from Article 10.1 of the Constitution and implied that water was already protected in the Constitution when he stated: "All natural resources, including the air and all forms of potential energy ... belong to the State," but he stopped reading at that point. What he did not say was the phrase, also in the same article, "subject to all estates and interests therein for the time being lawfully vested in any person or body". Article 10.3 states: "Provision may be made by law for the management of the property which belongs to the State by virtue of this Article and for the control of the alienation, whether temporary or permanent, of that property." The Constitution clearly envisages that the State has the power to alienate and to sell the natural resources, and that has happened. If that article were taken to mean what the Minister has interpreted it to mean, wind farms would not be allowed to operate, the Tara Mines would be in State control, and so on.

Terry Brennan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The ESB.

Thomas Byrne (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The ESB is in State control, but there but there are also private generators of energy and private extractors of natural resources throughout the country, and that is as it should be. It was a bit disingenuous of the Minister to read partially from Article 10 of the Constitution. He said that we all know what is in Article 10 without reading the entirety of it. What is needed is an amendment to Article 10 of the Constitution which would protect Irish Water.

The Minister and Senator Gilroy also made great play of property rights. Of course, property rights are not absolute, but they made an issue of wayleaves and pipework going through private land and how that would affect us. In fact, Irish Water - it was the local authorities previously - owns the sewerage pipes. The private landowner does not. It has a wayleave or a right of way through that land. These are the rights we want to protect in public ownership, the rights we do not want sold to the highest bidder and the rights we do not want somebody in the private sector to be able put a toll on to allow sewage to go through or water to flow to people's houses. Those pipes are not in private ownership; they are already subject to the rights that Irish Water has. That argument about property rights is bogus. It is the property and assets of Irish Water that we want to protect, not just the shares in the company that is Irish Water, for which the Act provides. It is the assets - the pipes, the treatment plants and access to people's homes - that we do not want sold. That is what we do not want to happen. This section does not provide for that in any way. It is a minimalist approach.

The Minister spoke about the difficulties and possibilities presented by referendums and the reasons we should not hold a referendum, but these reasons would also apply to the holding of a plebiscite. It would be exactly the same, except that at least with a referendum something is put into the Constitution. Those are the points to which I wanted to respond.

Ivana Bacik (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I want to make a point briefly because I have already spoken on Second Stage on this topic, and we have been speaking on this for some time. Clearly, the idea of enshrining in law the principle of public ownership of Irish Water is hugely attractive to all of us, and we are all on the same side on this in this House. It is a question of how it is best done. Like others, I had another look at this following our discussion in the House on the constitutional idea. It is attractive until one starts to look at the complexity of the wording and how we would construct a wording that does what we all want without having any other unforeseen implications. We spoke before about the difficulty with a constitutional referendum. The big contrast between that and a plebiscite is that we are inserting a wording into a constitutional text that is there until further amendment. We want to ensure that there is a popular vote before any government can seek to sell off any aspect of Irish Water in the future, and that is what a plebiscite would do. I am convinced that is enough. No government would bring in nuclear power, because the people spoke on that. The clear groundswell of support for public ownership of Irish Water is so overwhelming that no government would contemplate changing or privatising that, and a plebiscite is a way of copperfastening and safeguarding that through a double resolution of both Houses of the Oireachtas and a popular vote.

Brian Ó Domhnaill (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I wish to pick up on what Senator Byrne said, because it was a valid point. An element of confusion was brought into the debate by the Minister in regard to property rights and the law of unintended consequences. Senator O'Donovan pointed out that there is no such law, because it does not exist legally. It is merely a knock-on effect, an externality, or an inefficiency of a property right. Therefore, the property rights issue is a separate element entirely. It is not linked to this issue. The only property rights in question here were those outlined by Senator Byrne - that is, the rights associated with the infrastructure, land and networks that have been transferred to Irish Water. For example, in my county, assets worth €155 million were transferred from public ownership to Irish Water overnight on 1 January this year. Those are the property rights about which we should be concerned - the vast array of the public drinking water network, together with all the treatment facilities and all the sewerage infrastructure, which have been transferred to Irish Water. If Irish Water had not been established we would not even be having this debate on the section. It would be irrelevant, because the water system would be held within the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government or the local authorities and it would be within the control of public representatives. A public monopoly is being established with rights over the control of our water supply, and decision-making is being centralised away from the local authorities, the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and the Houses of the Oireachtas and into an agency, which is being provided with all the infrastructure to supply the network of water to every premises in the country. That is what is in question here.

What is being provided for in the legislation is extremely weak. A plebiscite is not worth the paper it is written on. It is only one of the options available under the proposed legislation. The other option is a simple resolution of Dáil and Seanad Éireann, and the equity stake in the company that is Irish Water could be transferred to any private stakeholder or stakeholders who wish to invest. We know that, inevitably, that is what will emerge down the road.

We can dream that the realm of politics does not work that way but I do not believe that. If an outside investor with serious bang for his buck is willing to provide billions of euro I do not believe that a future Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government will resist, particularly if an election is coming and the Government is struggling. It might be different if the money was used for something beneficial to the country. This applies irrespective of party allegiance and that future Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government could represent my party. We all know what would happen if this outside investor approached, given the party system; the Whip would be enforced, backbenchers would be silenced and the Minister would get his way. In these circumstances private sector rent-seeking behaviour would take control and we saw what happened with the bank guarantee.

I agree with what my Sinn Féin colleague said on the bank guarantee because it was disgraceful but I think it will happen due to this legislation too. At the time of the bank guarantee outsiders had more information than the regulators, the Minister for Finance and the Department of Finance officials so those outsiders called the shots and got their way. The same will happen with this legislation. I will not name the outsiders in this matter, though I suspect their names are on every Senator's lips, because those outsiders will come at this issue with the best legal financial, economic and financial brains in their corner and run rings around the system. Politics, Government and decision making would be captured by these outsiders. I am not blaming any political party in Government or in Opposition but I have set out the future if this legislation proceeds. We should not put our water network infrastructure in a position from which it might be captured in the manner I have outlined. At the end of the day, money talks and finance walks - that is what is at stake.

I could go on and on but the Minister, Deputy Kelly, and the Department give me the feeling they are unwilling to examine this. The referendum has been ruled out but why not disband Irish Water before it gets going? Establishing a public monopoly that is not fit for purpose, like Irish Water, is a bad decision and I base this observation on the fact that it has squandered so much money to date. Some €200 million of taxpayers' money has been spent on consultants and legal experts to replicate a structure that exists in other jurisdictions. The referendum would at least enshrine in the Constitution the human right to water, as defined by the UN. We must see that the right to water is enshrined in the Constitution so it cannot be sold for private gain and if we do not do so I believe Irish Water will be sold at some point in the future. It could be sold partially or wholly but, ultimately, elements of it will be sold because private equity investment will be required to fund infrastructure. It seems the Government is hell-bent on not providing funding for infrastructure, as evidenced in the recent announcement.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Like my colleagues, I am concerned about the tokenism of the plebiscite provision and the fact that it does not address the real issues raised by people around the country on the provision of water. I do not believe the assurances on infrastructure not being sold are sufficient because, when it comes to the privatisation of Irish Water, the money will not be made in the infrastructure. As is the case now with providers of electricity and gas, money will be made through the provision of the service. The Government wants to call the people using the service customers, rather than citizens. The provision of water could be regionalised under privatisation. The privatisation of infrastructure is a different issue as that mistake was made with Eircom but an imaginative financial institution could approach a future Government on the issue of the right to bill customers and offer to do it better. That institution could offer to provide water more cheaply and take responsibility away from the Government. I am sure there would be a tendering process but, as evidenced with broadband provision, the least economically viable areas would get the poorest service. This is already evident in how water is provided in rural areas where communities must provide their own water using their own methods.
The wording of the plebiscite pledge and the Government's reluctance to guarantee a constitutional referendum on the matter concern me. The right to water is the most basic right and a plebiscite on this matter is merely tokenism of the highest order and a reaction to an outcry by the people on the Government's lack of trustworthiness. The plebiscite offer is clear evidence that the Government cannot be trusted because, as I read into the record previously, in June 2010 the former leader of the Labour Party said water is a right. He did not believe it should be metered, that there should be a flat fee or that people should pay for it. For the record, I will read the exact quote from Deputy Eamon Gilmore in the Irish Examiner of 28 June 2010.

I am against water charging. Water is a necessity. I have always believed essential services like water should be delivered as a public service. A flat household charge would be unfair. It does not discriminate between houses with five bedrooms and those with none and metering is unworkable.

Terry Brennan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Who maintains the asset?

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

According to the Government, the taxpayers will maintain the assets.

Terry Brennan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Through the Chair, who maintains the networks?

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The taxpayers will.

Terry Brennan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is rubbish. The Senator has not got a clue what he is talking about.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Who does Senator Brennan think will pay for all this?

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I ask Senator Brennan to please respect the Chair as the Minister can respond adequately. Every time Senators on the Government side of the House interject they delay the debate.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Hear, hear. Well said.

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am sure the Senators do not doubt their Minister's ability to respond. Has Senator Daly concluded?

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No.

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Well, come on. I am allowing you to proceed.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am waiting for him to give me the answer.

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Speak through the Chair. Senator Brennan will not answer because I have cautioned him to bí ciúin.

Terry Brennan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Nobody interrupt-----

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

With all due respect Senator Brennan, the Minister is well qualified and capable of responding to anything Senator Daly says. Senator Daly to continue without interruption please.

Diarmuid Wilson (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not think he is as well qualified as Senator Brennan.

Terry Brennan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Once in a blue moon.

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator Daly.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator who?

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Fine Gael states it only governs for reasonable people.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am not in Fine Gael.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Thank you, Senator Norris. I would not like to label you as such.

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This is a very serious debate.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is nothing like a serious debate. It is a farce.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister, Deputy Noonan, stated he only governs for reasonable people, which goes to the Senator's point in his interruption about who would pay for the infrastructure. As I stated, the infrastructure is a liability, in that the maintenance-----

Terry Brennan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Who will maintain it?

Darragh O'Brien (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is very unfair.

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have already cautioned Senator Brennan. He is not helpful to the debate. He is being disrespectful to the Chair and, in my view, he is also being disrespectful to the Minister who will either answer Senator Daly or not. Senator Daly please continue.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

To answer the question again-----

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Nobody asked it.

Diarmuid Wilson (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

He should be expelled.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----the infrastructure will be a liability to the taxpayer because maintenance of the infrastructure will be done by the citizens, or the customers according to the Government. The Government is supposed to represent all of the people, but those who disagree with Irish Water and the Government's approach are not, according to the Government, the people whom it represents. It only governs for reasonable people according to the Minister for Finance.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Can I have medical assistance? I have had a stroke. I heard all of this yesterday. I am going back in time.

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator Norris, please stop. You are in the wrong seat and are a bit giddy over there. Senator Daly, please.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

He might find himself a bit disoriented.

Marie Louise O'Donnell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator Norris has become disoriented.

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator Daly to continue without interruption.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If he resumes his seat on the other side of the House it might help. I thank Senator Norris for his contribution.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Thank you. I will make another one.

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Please let Senator Daly continue. This will drip on like the water issue.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Exactly. This is the point I am trying to make.

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator Norris has spoken on a number of occasions.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does Senator Norris wish to say more?

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator Daly-----

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes. I think this is a terribly tedious debate. One would want to be brain dead to listen to it. We heard it all yesterday.

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator Daly should respect the Chair. He should speak through the Chair and ignore other comments.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is now 3 p.m. We are still discussing amendment No. 1 after three and a half hours.

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator Daly without interruption.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is no requirement for the Senator to be in the Chamber. If he finds it tedious that is his issue. It is up to himself.

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator Daly, do not attract the type of attention. You should make your contribution.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am afraid the Senator has asked for a response. I did not want him to feel he was obliged to sit in the Chamber. I thank Senator Norris.

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Respond through the Chair, Senator Daly, please.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The point on the infrastructure and the requirement for a referendum as opposed to a plebiscite is there are many ways in which the customers, according to the Government, could be sold on to a financial institution, and while the billing would not be done by the State the infrastructure would remain with it as a quasi-asset on the books, but a liability, as Senator Brennan has stated, to-----

Terry Brennan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

You are the only person who mentioned a liability. I asked you who will maintain it.

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have asked Senator Brennan not to interrupt.

Terry Brennan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Fair enough. Caithfidh mé dul abhaile. Níl mé ábalta éisteacht leis.

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Ná bí ag cur isteach orm.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Will Senator Brennan speak more loudly? I cannot hear a word of his response.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator Daly please conclude. Ignore the interruptions and speak through the Chair. Senator Daly on the amendment.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In this regard, as I have stated, the assurances of the Government are not worth the air on which they are written, because all that counts is what is in the legislation and what is in the Constitution. The lack of will in the Government to ensure not only public ownership of the infrastructure but also of those who would be billed is why the amendment is required. Not having it in the Constitution leaves open the sale of Irish Water and the people being billed to third parties.

Deputy Eamon Gilmore made his famous statement that he did not believe in flat charging or metering, and that he believed it was a public service. All we are trying to do is give fruition to his beliefs and to the beliefs of the Labour Party. However, it seems that if it does not like those principles it has others. The biggest problem for many people with regard to the billing and the €3 a week for water charges is they simply cannot pay it. A referendum will be held in May so there would be no charge to the Government to include another issue on the ballot paper with regard to Irish Water. It would give people genuine assurances, as opposed to words and the promises of leaders of political parties in the run-up to an election that it is an essential public service which they do not believe should be privatised. Deputy Rabbitte made a famous comment about making promises at election time. All that really counts-----

Marie Louise O'Donnell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Out of context.

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Please allow Senator Daly to speak without interruption.

Marie Louise O'Donnell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On a point of order, the quote was out of context.

Darragh O'Brien (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is not a point of order.

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is a matter for me. Allow Senator Daly to continue please. Because of the interruptions Senator Daly has had twice the normal speaking time. There were five interruptions. If Senators do not like his contribution, or what he is saying, they can leave the Chamber. The Minister is listening to him. We have been speaking about one section for four and a half hours. If we keep going the way we are we will be here on Christmas Eve.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Leas-Chathaoirleach for his ruling. We will have a plebiscite, which is unheard of in the history of the State, as opposed to having water as a right and a guarantee to the citizen. We believe this should be enshrined in the Constitution and should be included in the referenda to be held next year. It would give assurance to people no matter what Government is in place or who is in charge.

The problem with the wording on shares is that it is possible to have subsections of shares, and assets, infrastructure, companies and sub-companies can be manoeuvred. Subsidiaries of Uisce Éireann could be moved, as could customer billing, and legal people would be able to argue Irish Water was not actually sold. This could well be the case as a technical point of the law. People want to be assured the State will maintain control over all aspects, from the provision of water to customer billing, if the Bill is passed. All that people can really believe with regard to what is being said about Irish Water is what is written in the legislation, and not what is being promised in speeches in this House and other places, or what was being promised in advance. The Government previously stated it was not possible to deal with ten different issues. We were told these were absolutely impossible. However, U-turns were made on all of them.

There was a U-turn on the suspension of the charge. A household benefit payment, a winter fuel allowance and tax credits on payments were introduced. There was a replacement of the water conservation payment, a side-lining of the free allowance, an expansion of water application packs, the introduction of flat fee and the temporary abandonment of water meters and the bonus system for Irish Water. We were all told this could not be done yet it was done. The CER has been sidelined and now the Government is fixing pricing and not an extra cent in capital investment. Now the Government is telling us that there is all the capital investment in the world. When people see those U-turns and what the Government said could not be done being done, and when they were told that we could not have people having a say in Irish Water and the Government doing a half measure on a plebiscite, one needs to understand how people have no faith in the Government's assurances on the privatisation. The wording and phraseology by Minsters is quite clear. They talk about the infrastructure. There is no money in the infrastructure. The financial houses are looking at how they can maximise an investment on taking over the billing and that is where the money is. There is no provision within Irish Water to stop that from happening because the U-turns that have happened in the past 12 months can happen again.

As we know from plebiscites and the Constitution, the wording here can be interpreted in so many ways that it will not prevent them from retaining the infrastructure and at the same time, ensuring that the Government, which has abandoned Irish citizens and which says that it does not represent people who do not agree with it, cannot assure them that at some future date without a plebiscite or a constitutional amendment, it could not sell them down the Swanee and sell the billing rights under the great auspices and guise of the ever-demanding European search for the all-mighty euro and the belief that someone must make a profit at all times and that there should be competition. On the altar of competition, we would then see many of the people that the Government has abandoned and turned into customers would then be required to pay not to Irish Water but to some third party which has won a competitive bid.

We see in rural Ireland how disastrous the provision by private entities has been when it comes to broadband. I would imagine that in respect of our famous and much-lauded infrastructural improvements that the Government said could not happen but now there is capital investment in the water services, we would not see that happening. We will never see a plebiscite but I can guarantee that at some future date because of the requirement for money and Europe's instructions, we might end up having to look at a situation where there will be four different providers of the service who do not own the infrastructure but who will end up billing the customers nonetheless. In that case, the Government will say that it is within the legislation. Therefore, the U-turn will go from ten to 11 and the Irish citizen, who is our main concern, will be no better off.

Darragh O'Brien (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

One of the fundamental flaws in this and one of the biggest concerns people have is the ownership of water and whether it can be sold on. I heard the Minister say that no Government in its right mind would do this, that or the other. I do not agree. One can go back to the Minister of State's party and look at the NewERA document and the proposed establishment of the strategic investment bank which can be funded by the sale of State assets and the fact that this Government under a Labour Party Minister wanted to sell the harvesting rights for Coillte. These things were done very recently.

In an earlier contribution, Senator Byrne outlined how the fact that people think that no Government in its right mind would declare war on anyone else does not mean that we say that we do not need to copper-fasten that in our Constitution because nobody would actually do it. Ownership of water is a real and genuine concern. Senators on Second Stage who rightly called for that and supported the motion calling for a referendum did so on a cross-party basis. They were people from all parties and none with the exception of Fine Gael which supported that. This is what people want.

The Minister said earlier today that effectively the Government would not do it because it is complex. It is not that it cannot do it. If one looks at the referendum that related to this very House over 12 months, one can see that it was an extremely complex referendum that the Taoiseach and Cabinet had officials working on the wording of that referendum for the guts of a year. I believe over 70 amendments to the Constitution and Standing Orders would have been required to remove any reference to the Seanad. That was an extremely complex referendum to put together yet the Government did it because it wanted to do it. In this instance, where the people overwhelmingly want the Government to have a referendum to ensure that Irish Water cannot be sold or privatised in future, the Government will not do it. It is not that it cannot do it; it simply will not do it. I do not accept some of the comments from Labour Party Senators earlier who effectively said while they supported the motion that was within the House, they went back, studied it and were effectively told that it was not possible.

John Gilroy (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is not what we said.

Darragh O'Brien (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not believe that is true. The Senators thought it was not necessary. Why was it necessary only a matter of weeks ago but it is not necessary now? My opinion as to why it is believed that it is not necessary is because within the Labour Party, the party leader and Tánaiste in discussions with Ministers at Cabinet, told Labour Party Members that this was causing too much difficulty, that they had to toe the Fine Gael line on this and that there would be a halfway house whereby the Government would promise some type of plebiscite. The Minister openly acknowledged, and I welcome the fact that he did, that this piece of legislation can be just changed, as we all know. Nothing is tied in. What cannot be changed that easily is if one has a referendum and it is tied into the Constitution. If it is tied into that, only the people can decide.

I agreed wholeheartedly with Senator O'Donnell only a matter of weeks ago when she spoke so eloquently in here about the ownership of water and why water should not be privatised. I do not believe she could be convinced that what Government has come up in this Bill is sufficient to deal with her concerns and the concerns of probably over 80% of the people in the most recent poll. I do not believe her fears could have been assuaged by what the Government has come up with in section 2 of this Bill which can be removed by any future Government. That section could be stood down. They are real concerns.

Senator Daly outlined ten different U-turns. Since the Government set up Irish Water, things that could not be changed have now been changed. Here is another one the Government said could not be changed. The Taoiseach said only a matter of weeks ago that there was no need for anything and that this was fine. Now it is in the legislation. Let us remind ourselves about what is being done here about Irish Water. The Government has spent €172 million on setting it up. That does not include €540 million on the meters themselves. I am supportive of metering because in future-----

John Gilroy (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

You just want it for free.

Darragh O'Brien (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Government spent €540 million plus €172 million. It will probably raise a maximum of €140 million per year. It will probably be way less than that - some people are saying it will be €20 million - and for what? It has transferred 4,000 staff to a utility that is-----

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is more appropriate under another section. We are dealing with the plebiscite.

Darragh O'Brien (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will get to that section later. I am not convinced by the argument made by Government and those who support this section that what Government is proposing with regard to a plebiscite would in any way, shape or form deal with the future ownership of water.

While commentators might say now no Government would do it, I do not agree. Fine Gael, in particular, would be a party about which, should it be in government again, I would be concerned would sell Irish Water because that has been the party's track record. Fine Gael tried to do that already in the term of this Government. Look at Fine Gael's NewERA document that the Minister, Deputy Coveney, put together in 2009 in advance of Fine Gael's election manifesto. Way back then, Fine Gael talked about the creation of a utility. Look at what has happened in Britain with regard to privatisation of water, the problem they have and the cost. Once one gets the people into the net, as Senator Cullinane mentioned, they are treated as customers, not citizens. The people own the water and it is not up to the Government to come up with some half-baked measure like this.

We all are supposed to feel confident in a Government that has utterly failed,-----

David Cullinane (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Hear, hear.

Darragh O'Brien (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----particularly in this instance. It has been an absolute disaster. Anyone who is honest about it would say of the mess created - by both the former Minister, Commissioner Hogan, and the Cabinet - that Deputy Kelly comes in here, beats his chest and states correctly that he will sort it out, he recognises mistakes were made and it was a mess but his party leader, the Tánaiste, and others all sat at Cabinet and made the decision together. There is collective Cabinet responsibility. Because the former Minister has gone to Europe, they can blame him for this mess and state it was nothing to do with them.

While I acknowledge that the Minister has moved some way towards rectifying some of the issues, the fundamental issue that relates to this section and that Senator Barrett's amendment would deal with, has not been dealt with sufficiently. I listened to the Second Stage speeches yesterday. I listened with interest to some of the Independent Senators who decided, for their own reasons, to support the Government on the Bill, particularly around the area of ownership, and I was not convinced. I remain unconvinced.

For those who may be frustrated with the fact that we are still on Committee Stage a number of hours in, I would say that this Bill should have been defeated on Second Stage. That is why we are perfectly within our rights to table amendments on Committee Stage and to debate those amendments, and we will continue to do that.

As for all the thousands of people who have made contact with each of us - I do not subscribe to what the Minister and some Senators stated earlier about these computer-generated e-mails - I have spoken to some of those who e-mailed me and responded to many of those e-mails. People are genuinely concerned about this. As for this idea that in some way it was an annoyance that we received hundreds of e-mails per day,-----

David Cullinane (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

One of Senator Darragh O'Brien's own colleagues.

Darragh O'Brien (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

----- I say, "Big deal". That is the job. I agree with Senator Cullinane. I myself do not share that view. People are entitled to contact their Oireachtas Members about issues that concern them and that is what people, in the hundreds and thousands, have been doing over the past number of days and weeks.

Terry Brennan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Some 50% of them are anonymous.

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator Brennan is normally a placid gentleman here. Santa must be after returning his letter because he is very grumpy today.

Terry Brennan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am in the wrong seat.

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator Darragh O'Brien to conclude.

Darragh O'Brien (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will conclude shortly.

I would invite the Minister of State, Deputy Coffey, if he could, - I would invite the Minister, Deputy Kelly, to come back in to contribute sooner rather than later on this specific issue - to explain the complexity of having a referendum about the ownership of Irish Water staying with the Irish people in perpetuity. He cannot publish the Attorney General's advice but he can state the issues in real terms. This idea of private wells, bore holes, aquifers is a load of nonsense. I assume that Cabinet received formal advice from the Attorney General but I have not received a proper answer to that either. The Minister stated that the Attorney General advised and was contacted. Did formal advice go to the Cabinet? Did the Cabinet meet specifically about the issue of a referendum following the passing by the Seanad of a motion on the issue? The Minister, Deputy Kelly, stated he brought that to Cabinet and it discussed it. Was it dealt with formally as an item on the agenda at a Cabinet meeting? Did the Minister formally get advice from the Attorney General? What are the real areas of complexity and how are those complex issues so insurmountable that we cannot deal with them when only last year a number of civil and public servants were sent away for the guts of a year to prepare for a referendum on the abolition of the Seanad which was far more complex? It showed when the Government wanted to do something, it could. The reality is that they do not want to hold a referendum on this issue. They should because that would clear up a major part of the concerns that people have.

Let us return to look at Irish Water right now and everything that was said. The local property tax was mentioned. Not one cent of what was collected in this country this year under what the Minister calls the local property tax has gone to the local authorities. Furthermore, to get around EU rules, the Government has taken another €60 million from the local authorities to cook the books to ensure that its subvention to Irish Water does not go over 50%.

It is a disaster. I acknowledge that the Minister tried to go some way towards fixing it but he has not gone far enough. The Government should hold a referendum next May. With the other referenda that it has announced and with the by-election, it can be done. It might be the one referendum on which the Government would get the support of the people. It is important. People are genuinely concerned about it.

Section 2 does not do it for most people. If the Bill is passed, the Minister could introduce an amendment next year, if he wanted to, to remove the section. That would be it, job done. It does not matter about a plebiscite or two thirds of the Dáil and Seanad. None of it matters. It is completely irrelevant. The Minister could come in and change it. If he holds a referendum and it is enshrined in the Constitution, the Minister would have to go back to the people to get their approval.

David Cullinane (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Hear, hear.

Darragh O'Brien (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is the real belt and braces. That is what is required, namely, that the Government put it into Bunreacht na hÉireann. The people want the ownership of the water in this country to be retained by the people of Ireland in perpetuity. Let them vote on it. What is the problem with them voting on it? I have not yet got an answer to that.

David Cullinane (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Absolutely.

Darragh O'Brien (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister of State should tell me what the problem is. Is it a political decision that Fine Gael and the Labour Party have made or are there really complex areas that the Government cannot deal with, or is it that the Government will not deal with those areas? I ask the Minister of State, Deputy Coffey, or the Minister, Deputy Kelly, whenever he returns this evening, to answer that question. What is so complex about this that the Minister cannot do it?

I still think, even at this stage, that this section in its entirety should be deleted. My party is opposing it. My colleagues in Sinn Féin and others on the Independent benches are opposing the section. The Government should delete this section, take it out of the Bill and go back to the drawing board. They can still do that.

They have set themselves a false deadline of January for charges. They have changed that previously. They changed already the deadline for the return of applications forms to be sent in to Irish Water. At one stage we were told that it was an absolute necessity that PPS numbers be sent in to get allowances and, lo and behold, it is not and Irish Water is deleting all the PPS numbers that it holds. Why should we trust the Government with the advice the Minister is giving us on this important issue when it has got so much of it wrong up until now? The Minister of State should tell us why the Government cannot hold a referendum. Is it a political decision, did the Government merely decide that it does not want to and it is against doing so, and what are the areas of complexity in that regard? Even if Deputy Coffey stated the Government could not hold a referendum next May and it will take longer than that, he should prepare a referendum for next year. He should clear up that issue and deal with other areas of concern, such as charges.

I am yet to be convinced by those who argued vociferously, in my view, rightly, for a referendum only a short couple of weeks ago who now believe that this section on a plebiscite is sufficient. I still remain to be convinced as to why that is.

The Leas-Chathaoirleach might advise me as to whether it is appropriate that the Minister of State respond at this stage to answer queries that have been put already.

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There are a number of other speakers.

Darragh O'Brien (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

At what time does the Leas-Chathaoirleach reckon we will get a response from the Minister to the queries? Will that be at the end of Committee Stage?

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No; I have three more speakers. I propose then, if there are no other speakers, to call on the Minister to respond.

Darragh O'Brien (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The speakers could come back in after the Minister’s response.

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are dealing with Committee Stage, and Members can speak as often as they wish, within reason, provided they are speaking on the section.

Darragh O'Brien (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Thank you for clarifying that. Maybe after three or four more speakers the Minister might respond on those specific issues, because that would help some people decide on section 2.

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator Craughwell is-----

Darragh O'Brien (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Sorry; I have not concluded yet. I am yet to be absolutely convinced on that. I know the Minister has taken a note. I do not know whether it is the Minister of State, Deputy Coffey, or the Minister, Deputy Kelly who is coming back in.

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is not for me to decide. Whoever it is, I am sure he will respond to you.

Tom Shehan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Will he respond or shall he respond?

Darragh O'Brien (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I would imagine he shall.

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator O’Brien has made his contribution. I remind Members that we are on section 2, amendment No. 1, on the plebiscite issue.

Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Ninety-eight years after the founding fathers of this country declared the right of the people of Ireland to the ownership of Ireland, we are here pleading with the Minister to call a referendum in order that we can enshrine one tiny part of the ownership of Ireland to the people, and that is water. Water is the single commodity we cannot live without. A lot of people are repeating the same things, but the more I hear going on today, the more I demand that the evidence that this cannot be put to a referendum be brought before the House and made public. This notion that we get legal advice from some person with a wig who can hide behind his gown and never make himself or his opinion known to the people - or worse still, offer an opinion and hide behind anonymity - is totally unacceptable. Somebody made the point that we did not sell off the ESB, which is correct. How many companies are supplying electricity in this country at the moment? How many companies can contract from the ESB and supply electricity? I just had a quick look on the internet and can pick any one of six companies. I can go to uSwitch.ieand pick a company at random. I can do the same for gas, TV and telecommunications.
We keep referring to people as customers. How can I be a customer of something I own? The Minister says he is going to enshrine ownership through a plebiscite, because he cannot flog it off unless the plebiscite is passed. We all accept, and the Minister himself accepts, that a plebiscite has no legal basis whatsoever. I agree it would be a brave Government that would run a plebiscite, win or lose it and then go off and do the opposite thing, but there is absolutely nothing to stop this from happening.
Meters that we do not need have been installed around the country to the tune of €540 million. We are told they will help people control their water usage. I can assure the Minister of State that there will be a meter outside my house in the next few days and it is not going to change one jot the amount of water we use in the house. My wife will still go out and water the garden and I will pick up the cost. It is a nonsense. The Minister has gone off and decided to spend this money when he could have put that €540 million into repairing the system. A flat charge does not in any way inspire or enthuse people to cut down on their water usage.
It strikes me, based on what Senator O'Brien has just said, that there will be insufficient funding from the fixed charge. The fixed charge is already discriminatory, because I am paying €40 a year more than my single neighbour - an extra €20 each for myself and my wife. The bottom line is that the Minister is not going to collect enough money to pay off what he has borrowed, so how is he going to fix the infrastructure? Some smart suit over in Brussels is going to stand up and insist that he bring in competition in order to fund his infrastructure. It is going to happen. They have already forced him to make our electricity system competitive. They will force him to make our water system competitive unless we have something there to protect us.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Vótáil.

Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

My colleague, Senator Daly, said we must ensure that we have control over Irish Water. I disagree with him. We must not ensure we have control over it; we must ensure that we own it. That is not control; it is absolute control. We must own everything - every pipe, every production plant, everything.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Vótáil.

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator Norris, please allow Senator Craughwell to speak without interruption.

Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Perhaps Senator Norris is right. Perhaps it has been a tiresome morning for all of us. I cannot even begin to explain to the Minister of State the level of frustration that I feel today. I have two telephones beside me here. I have contacted country councillors all over the country and none of them wants anything to do with Irish Water. The level of frustration they feel as a result of starvation by countless Governments down through the years that refused to fund water properly is palpable. My phone is hopping off the table here. I am tired. Bring me the evidence. Show me and the Irish people what legal advice the Minister - I am glad to see the Minister, Deputy Kelly, is back in the Chamber - has. He should bring that advice in and read it into the record and let the people know. Otherwise, he is hiding something. That applies to both the Minister and the Minister of State, Deputy Coffey. If there is nothing to hide, why not just bring it in and read it out? You does not have to read the name of the person who gave it to you. If you asked the Attorney General to give you advice, I am sure the Attorney General contracted some other senior counsel or legal entity.

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator, address your remarks to the Chair, please.

Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Sorry, Chairman. He should just bring in the evidence and read it out-----

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Hear, hear. Vótáil.

Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----and at least put the people's minds to rest on that issue so that they know there is a genuine reason he cannot agree to a referendum. I will finish on that, as it has been a long morning.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Vótáil.

Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Bhí mé ag éisteacht le mórán den díospóireacht ar maidin agus um thráthnóna.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As Béarla, más é do thoil é.

Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is dócha go mbeadh an leasú seo an-tábhachtach don Bhille atá os ár gcomhair inniu.

I would like to commend Senator Barrett on this amendment. A plebiscite on the ownership of Irish Water is essential if water is to remain within the ownership of the Irish people. I said on Second Stage, and would have said again on Committee Stage, that I am certainly not enamoured with monopolies. Public monopolies are not quite as bad as private monopolies. What we have in Uisce Éireann is a public monopoly. Unfortunately, it has started in the worst possible way, with all the excesses we would associate with some of the longer-established public or semi-private sector companies. Mention has been made of ESB, for example-----

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On a point of order, could the Leas-Chathaoirleach reassure me that the House has a quorum?

Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I made much reference to Bord Gáis during this debate, because it is the body in which Uisce Éireann has been placed as a subsidiary. If we look at the ESB, though, the average salary there as of about six years ago was €70,000 per year.

If one compares this with any other industry one will see a huge disparity. During the terms of the last Dáil and Seanad I was a member of the Joint Committee on Communications, Energy and Natural Resources and I sought to obtain figures on the salaries of the top ten executives in each of the semi-State companies under the remit of that committee. I met some resistance but we also got figures for the average salaries. It is fair to say that people were handsomely paid because I doubt that people in the same positions in the private sector got half the amount of money. There is a historical record on this and, ultimately, when it comes to public utilities, taxpayers and householders foot the bill for egregiously handsome pay packages in semi-State companies.

Mention has been made of the privatisation of water but water is one of our great natural resources and I think we all acknowledge that it is valuable. It will become increasingly valuable because climate change will have a significant bearing on the need for water around the world and will adversely affect water supply in many regions. All of this will enhance significantly the value of our water resources. We are fortunate to live in an area with a plentiful supply of good quality water. I visited Jordan as part of a delegation of American and Irish politicians some years ago and I attended a meeting with King Abdullah where he predicted that the next general war in the Middle East will be about water rather than oil. Huge issues in that region at the moment have given rise to tensions that could lead to conflict over the supply of water.

If there are to be charges, it is essential that we ensure water continues to be available to the people of Ireland at a competitive rate. The cost of water must be reasonable and affordable but if Irish Water is privatised, customers, householders and the people of Ireland will be fleeced. This could be avoided if there was sufficient competition under privatisation but I do not know how that could be achieved.

Much reliance has been placed on section 2 and I will return to the wording and the weaknesses of the section shortly. The weaknesses of section 2 are apparent irrespective of the intent behind the section, which is unachievable anyway. The previous speaker mentioned the European Union and I welcome the fact that the EU has protected the consumers of this State in various areas but greater efforts are required to ensure competition and consumer protection in a range of areas where monopolies or dominance exist. Energy provides a good example because we pay far more in Ireland for electricity than those in other countries. The cost of telecommunications is very high in Ireland but efforts have been made through the EU to introduce more competition to tackle the issue of cost. As stated, water is an area upon which the EU will focus attention in the not-too-distant future. The EU has increased its levels of intervention in all areas of society but I do not welcome intervention on social matters because I think that is ideologically driven rather than in people's best interests. The sovereignty of individual states must be respected.

Ireland has signed up to the powers of the EU through various treaties that were approved by the people of Ireland in referenda. The State will not be able to contest any challenge by the EU in the area of water because the people of Ireland have already endorsed the various treaties from which the EU derives its powers. Fine Gael and Labour Party Senators have said that their parties have guaranteed the people of Ireland that Uisce Éireann will not be privatised. I do not know how reassured the people will be by such a commitment from these parties but it is only a couple of months since one of the parties in these Houses, Sinn Féin, stated that it would buttress any shortfall in funds by part-privatising Irish Water. The by-election in Dublin South-West changed the view of the party but it could make another U-turn on this in future, as could any party. I am concerned by this and do not believe the people of Ireland will find comfort in the assurances of any politician from any party.

I was in this House when the economic crisis began in 2008 and it is the biggest emergency the State has faced in my lifetime. The future of the country was at stake and the parties in the Opposition at that stage were happy to play politics by promising to burn bondholders and show the people of Ireland a better way. Yesterday I read into the record assurances from the then Opposition that there would be no charges for water because the then Opposition opposed such charges. However, the Bill before us and the Bill we dealt with this time last year aim to impose water charges on the people of Ireland.

The standing of politicians in public opinion is very low and, while this is somewhat exaggerated and media-driven, there are good reasons for it. Politicians say things without any intention to follow through and give no thought to reversing direction when the time comes. I heard rumours yesterday that public moneys and soon-to-open public positions are being used to secure the passage of this Bill through the Houses. I do not know if the rumours are true and I sincerely hope they are not because, if true, they would further undermine the standing and credibility of politicians. This would not be good for democracy at a time when many people in society are almost anarchists who are happy to undermine the democratic process by stoking public opinion. If we lose the democratic process we lose everything.

I know that section 2 was added with good intent and to assuage fears held by the people who campaigned against the legislation. They feel that Irish Water could fall into private ownership and impose unaffordable costs on hard-pressed taxpayers. As many Members have asked, is section 2 any more than a fig leaf?

I will give two reasons for my saying that and raising the question. First, as many speakers have said, any legislation can be overturned at any stage by any Government purely by bringing amending legislation through the House. If there is another Government such as the current one, with a huge majority in the Lower House, legislation may be overturned at the whim of a Minister or, perhaps, a Department. This presents a serious risk for the public.
The next issue I wish to raise was highlighted by my colleague. If the European Union, for example, imposed a requirement on us to ensure an element of competition in the interest of the consumer, the Government would be obliged to take it on board. No Government would be able to resist that. In such circumstances, there would be a credible argument for changing the legislation without a plebiscite. The latter would leave us offside with the European Union and we could be fined for contravening its laws and regulations. This point has been made by many others.
Let me raise a point I have not heard made yet but which seriously concerns me. I refer to the complete undermining of the Government's intent. Section 2(1) states a Bill providing or allowing for the alienation of any share or shares in Irish Water to a person other than a Minister of the Government shall not be initiated without a resolution on a referendum coming before the House. That deals specifically with the transfer of shares. As we all know, one does not have to transfer shares to transfer business. The business could be transferred.
In this regard my colleague, Senator Byrne, referred to the lottery, in respect of which a licence to operate or a lease for a period could be given. In this instance, however, one could go further. There could be a transfer of the business of Uisce Éireann. Perhaps it would retain the distribution system but there is nothing in this section that would prevent it from transferring the treatment plants or reservoirs, for example, or from determining the water charges. Perhaps Uisce Éireann would retain the network of pipes, for which it would apply a charge to the new private entity. There is nothing in this section that would prevent that from happening. A Government could have to act under duress based on a requirement of the European Union. If what I describe happens, a Government could proceed without any reference to the Oireachtas. It would not even have to go to people. The business could be transferred under the legislation. That is a very serious lacuna in what is drafted. This would be the case even if it had the force of sustainability in the future, which, obviously, no legislation has because it can be changed.
I ask the Minister to reconsider. It is not as if we are asking for something very unreasonable. Everybody I have heard speak, including the Minister, talked about keeping our water supplies in Irish ownership in perpetuity. If we are ad idemon that, there will be an opportunity next May, at no extra cost to the people or at very little cost, to hold a referendum with the others the Government is proposing to hold. There is actually an avenue to achieve what we are asking for if the Government is of a mind to do it.
To date, I have not heard how the Government could give us absolute assurance on this without underpinning that assurance with an article in our Constitution. One of the greatest legacies of Éamon de Valera and the Government of the 1930s was a Constitution that has really stood the test of time, as the Minister acknowledged. It was extraordinary a few years ago, when we were introducing in our laws the European Convention on Human Rights, that all the protections we were adding to our laws were already invoked and covered under the 1937 Constitution. It is remarkable that there was such foresight and vision almost 80 years ago. Today we urge that some of the vision of the founding fathers of this State be applied by our current Government and all politicians. I do not just point the finger at the Government. We all need to renew our sense of commitment to the people and this country, in which we are fortunate enough to have been born and to live.

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I call Senator O'Donnell, whom I acknowledge has been waiting very patiently to make her comment.

Marie Louise O'Donnell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Leas-Chathaoirleach. I had an opportunity to make one earlier. Senator O'Brien is not here.

Darragh O'Brien (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am.

Marie Louise O'Donnell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am delighted. He is here on cue.

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator O'Brien may not comment unless he is in his seat.

Marie Louise O'Donnell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I suggest to Senator Darragh O'Brien that he not decide what I am and am not convinced of.

Darragh O'Brien (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I said I was not convinced.

Marie Louise O'Donnell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

He should not do that. I am extremely aware of the difference between the privatisation and public ownership of water. I have watched Nestlé walk through Africa and, as I told the House, bottle African water under the guise of Pure Life and sell it all over the world. I am extremely aware of what happens when vulture funds take over, in whatever capacity, especially in respect of something as important as water.

Senators talk about how important water is. We are water. Some 73% of one’s heart is made up of water.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Nonsense. It is made up of blood.

Marie Louise O'Donnell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Some 83% of one’s lungs and 93% of what we eat is water based.

Marie Louise O'Donnell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am right. Water is us; we are water. We come from water and we are water. The idea that it is important is insufficient as one cannot find a word to suggest how important it actually is.

I suggest to Fianna Fáil, because it has been thumping at us over here all morning-----

Darragh O'Brien (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thought Senator O'Donnell was independent.

Paschal Mooney (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thought Senator O'Donnell independent.

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It might be wise for Senator O'Donnell not to antagonise the other side.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Exactly. Hear, hear. Well said. Vótáil.

Marie Louise O'Donnell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The slings and arrows. The reason we are here is that Fianna Fáil abolished water rates.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I never touched them.

Marie Louise O'Donnell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The general election-----

Marie Louise O'Donnell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I ask the Senators to allow me to finish.

Paschal Mooney (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have a point of order. In 1983, the then Labour Party–Fine Gael coalition abolished the rate support grant which gave local authorities the right to raise revenue, including through water rates.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Hear, hear. Vótáil.

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is not a point of order. Senator O'Donnell should please confine her remarks to the amendment.

Marie Louise O'Donnell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The party drew up a manifesto which offered the electorate a string of financial and economic sweeteners, encouraging them to vote for Fianna Fáil. Some of the promises that were offered included the abolition of rates on houses, the abolition of car tax and the promise of reducing unemployment, and the abolition of water rates.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Could the Honourable Member indicate the source of her quotation?

Marie Louise O'Donnell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Thank you, thank you. Not only did it do that, but it heralded in Mr. Bertie Ahern, Mr. Seán Doherty, Mr. Pádraig Flynn, Mr. Mark Killilea, Mr. Liam Lawlor-----

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Mark who?

Marie Louise O'Donnell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Will I go on?

Paschal Mooney (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What is the Senator talking about?

Marie Louise O'Donnell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am talking about-----

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator O'Donnell-----

Paschal Mooney (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Please enlighten us.

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

----- I do not want the debate to get into frivolities. Please stick to the amendment.