MARIE O’HALLORAN

The Seanad has rejected by 30 votes to 22 a Sinn Féin proposal that any decision by a future Oireachtas to privatise water services would have to be supported by each individual local authority as well as by a plebiscite.

It was the first vote on the Water Services Bill after more than seven hours of the debate on the controversial legislation to give effect to changes to the water charges regime, announced recently by the Government.

Earlier, Minister for the Environment Alan Kelly said he had gone as far as he could to guarantee there would be no privatisation of Irish Water.

"I believe that what we have here is as far as we can go, hand on heart," he told the Seanad after a five-hour debate on an amendment from Independent Sean Barrett to protect water services against privatisation.

The Minister rejected the amendment to allow for the “alienation of shares” in Irish Water, from parent company Ervia to the Minister for Finance.

Mr Barrett, an economist, said this would be a “stronger protection in this common goal with the minister to prevent the privatisation of Irish Water”. This would effectively nationalise the sector against privatisation, he said.

But rejecting the amendment, Mr Kelly said there were no ownership shares in Ervia, that the shares were held by the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform and the Minister for the Environment.

He insisted: “I have gone as far as is possible on this issue.” The Government has proposed a plebiscite which will have to be held if both Houses of the Oireachtas want to privatise Irish Water.

Mr Barrett said he would withdraw the amendment and allow reflection until the report stage because he believed it was a better proposal than was in the legislation.

The Minister said that he came from the Labour party which was opposed to privatisation. But he asked: “What Government into the future would potentially take away the right of the people to decide on the ownership of water if they were so minded to do it.

“What Government in their right mind would even consider that and I say this. I don’t know what public would elect a Government to make that decision in the first place.”

Mr Kelly echoed the comments of his Labour colleague in the Dail Willie Penrose who said he would “allow Irish water and the water of this country to be privatised over my dead body”.

Independent Mary Ann O’Brien said she accepted the Minister did not ever want to privatise water. But she told him: “You’re not going to be here” in 2050.

She quoted comments by Minister for Agriculture Simon Coveney on the pressure on natural resources such as water in 2050 when the global population was expected to increase by two billion.

In 2050, she said, “we are so fortunate to have the perfect temperate climate, we will be the target for the oligarchs of Russia. We will be the targets of the Chinese to privatise it and Minister you will not be here to defend it.”

Ms O’Brien a referendum was the only way to absolutely 100 per cent guarantee against privatisation because “it’s going to end up with the Russians or the Chinese unless you give us a referendum”.

The Government had a comfortable 31 to 26 majority last night on the second stage of the legislation in the Seanad, the Dáil having passed the legislation earlier in the week.

In the Upper House debate Independent Marie-Louise O’Donnell appealed to the Minister to guarantee the section against privatisation of water services was “watertight” for her continued support of its passage through the Seanad.

Marie-Louise O’Donnell supported the second reading in the Upper House of the Water Services Bill, which gives effect to the Government’s recently announced reduction in charges and changes in Irish Water’s operation.

But the Taoiseach’s nominee said that “when I hear the word privatisation I’m apoplectic” and she pointed out that 34 per cent of the world’s drinking water had been privatised.

She also told the Seanad that in all her years dealing with the public she had never received so much abuse as she had about the controversial legislation.

In an impassioned and emotional address to the Seanad, she appealed for a “watertight” guarantee against privatisation. “That’s what I want to see here and that’s what you have to convince me of today and then I might be able to take the abuse with a little more heart.”

She told the Minister that “I’m in four minds about this. I understand we have to pay for water. I don’t understand the way it was set up. It was so outrageously bad that Noddy and Big Ears and some people in Toytown would have done a better job on it.”

Mr Kelly said: “All legislation of course can be changed. I’m a straight talker - all legislation can be changed”, but he asked again “what Government is going to do this” or would want to privatise against public opposition and what public would elect a government that did.

The Minister also rejected an amendment from Fianna Fail's Thomas Byrne who believed there was a significant flaw in the plebiscite proposals, believing they referred only to the sale of shares in Irish Water and I propose it should refer to the assets.

Mr Kelly said however that the “assets could not be sold off without the shareholders agreeing to it”. He also said investors, by financing the company would not have a lean on its assets.

But the Minister said he would look further over the weekend at the amendments and consider them for report stage on Monday.

Earlier Mr Byrne claimed that a “deliberate error” was made on privatisation in the Water Services Bill to make it look like the Minister for the Environment had listened to concerns and had changed the legislation.

Thomas Byrne believed this change had influenced independents and he believed there was a “serious flaw” in the proposal for a plebiscite on privatisation of water services.

He said the Minister had made great play yesterday of changing ‘may’ to ‘shall’ in terms of holding a plebiscite and it was Mr Byrne’s understanding was that that was a particular factor for Independent Senator Fiach MacConghail.

He said: “In my view that particular change was the greatest example of ‘political bait and switch’ that we’ve seen. The mistake was so obvious that it would be spotted by anybody reading the legislation and it enabled the Minister to say ‘oh I’ve listened to you and I’ve changed the legislation’.”

Mr Byrne, a solicitor, said that in his view it was a deliberate error put into the legislation to be able to give something back.

Sinn Féin's David Cullinane, who said the only possible solution was a referendum described the Minister as "like a second hand car salesman trying to sell us something that is like a pig in a poke". If the political will was there a referendum could be held, he said.