We use Google Analytics to see which pages are read and how the site is used, so we know what to improve. This only runs if you accept. See our privacy notice for details.

Dáil
‹ Order of Business

Water in public ownership Bill

Summary

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin pressed for progress on the constitutional amendment Bill on water in public ownership, saying it was stalled over a money message and Attorney General advice. The Taoiseach said he could not give a timeframe and argued there was no current risk of privatisation because water services were back in the State system.

Last November the Thirty-fifth Amendment of the Constitution (Water in Public Ownership) (No. 2) Bill 2016 was passed in the Dáil without dissent and in May considered by the Joint Committee on Housing, Planning, Community and Local Government at pre-legislative scrutiny stage. We have since been unable to progress it because the Minister responsible has not brought forward the necessary money message and because the then Minister indicated that he wanted to consult the Attorney General to consider the text of the legislation. Will the Taoiseach explain to the House why the Government is deliberately delaying the progress of the Bill through the housing committee? Will he tell us when the necessary money message and the Attorney General's advice will be progressed in order that we can do the work we have been asked to do at the housing committee?

Comment on this
Leo Varadkar The Taoiseach Fine Gael

I cannot give the Deputy a timeframe as to when the necessary advice from the Attorney General will be available. I do not believe I have been asked for a money message on this yet although I may stand to be corrected on that. That we no longer have water charges and that Irish Water is very much back on the State's balance sheet kind of removes the urgency for a referendum of the nature in question.

Comment on this
Leo Varadkar The Taoiseach Fine Gael

I do not believe there is any risk whatsoever that our water services are going to be privatised given that it is now totally back within the State system-----

Comment on this