Trade unionists involved in the anti-water charges campaign have won a significant victory in setting official policy of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions (Ictu) on the issue.

Following an often acrimonious debate at Ictu’s biennial conference in Ennis, delegates backed a policy that rejected the imposition of water charges and sought to pursue a constitutional referendum to prevent the future privatisation of water services.

The conference earlier voted by a margin of nine votes — 203 to 194 — to reject an amendment put forward by the trade union Impact calling for the public to be given an increased free water allowance sufficient to meet their normal domestic needs.

Critics of the Impact proposal argued this would effectively endorse the imposition of water charges and could have implications for opposition to water charges in Northern Ireland where Ictu also has affiliated unions.

Brendan Ogle of the Unite trade union – who opposed the Impact amendment – told the conference the issue was not about whether water was paid for or not. “Of course, we pay for water, this is about how we pay for water. We currently pay for water through progressive general taxation. While water should be free at the point of use, nobody thinks water is free. Water needs to be paid through tax.”

Terry Kelleher of the Civil Public and Services Union, who also opposed the Impact amendment, said water charges represented a first step to privatisation. “It is not about funding a service or about conservation, it is a bail-out tax.”

Impact president Gerry King said thousands of people who were members of unions linked to Ictu worked in the water service and they needed to be protected against out-sourcing and privatisation.

Siptu president Jack O’Connor, who backed the Impact amendment, said if the Government removed water charges in the morning, it would have to find €500 million or €600 million which was currently available for public services. He said there were about 4,000 workers currently employed in the water service and many were members of Siptu.

He also said the law currently protected their employment which was on the basis of collectively -bargained terms and conditions. “When their representatives came and asked me if water charges were abolished, can you guarantee us that the law and protection will still stand, I could not and nether can any other person in this hall.”

He said if the water allowance was increased as proposed by Impact, it would open the way for the next government a few years down the road to re-designate Irish Water from its current status as a commercial semi-State company. He said this would mean the existing €500 million or €600 million would remain available annually in the interim. He argued that when Irish Water became a non-commercial state then water could be provided in the way that the anti-water charge campaign wanted the service to be provided.

Impact national secretary Eamon Donnelly said his union’s amendment sought to maintain existing Ictu policy on water in the Republic and had no implication for the campaign against water charges in Northern Ireland.

He said the Impact position sought to increase the free allowance so that every household’s domestic water needs were met and that financial liabilities only arose when this level was exceeded “by waste, leakage or by filling swimming pools”.