As Fianna Fáil leader, the Taoiseach led the party into a confidence and supply arrangement with Fine Gael in 2016, ten years ago. That was in the wake of large-scale water protests, which resulted eventually in the abolition of domestic water charges and the setting up of a special Oireachtas committee on water services. I and former Deputy Thomas Pringle represented the Independent TDs on that committee. That Government, which the Taoiseach supported, promised and committed to bring forward a referendum to put public ownership of water services into Bunreacht na hÉireann. Ten years later, we are no nearer to that referendum. I compliment former TDs and colleagues, Joan Collins and Thomas Pringle, for their efforts in pursuing this referendum and introducing the Thirty-fifth Amendment of the Constitution (Water in Public Ownership) (No. 2) Bill 2016. In the intervening years, that commitment has been given by successive taoisigh and Ministers.

In 2017, the Oireachtas committee on water unanimously agreed that a referendum should be held. In 2019, the then Minister, Eoghan Murphy of Fine Gael, promised that a referendum would take place in the first half of 2020. The programme for Government in 2020, Our Shared Future, again promised a referendum to "Retain Irish Water in public ownership as a national, standalone, regulated utility." In November 2022, Micheál Martin, as Taoiseach, told the Dáil that the Government intended to hold a referendum on housing and water in, as he said, the near future, and that the Minister, Deputy Darragh O’Brien, would be in a position to act on these issues early in the new year in 2023. In March 2023, the then Taoiseach, Leo Varadkar, said the Government was committed to holding a constitutional referendum to keep Irish Water in public ownership.

Ten years later, and after all those commitments, we are no nearer to that referendum. Where is the referendum relating to the Thirty-fifth Amendment of the Constitution (Water in Public Ownership) (No. 2) Bill 2022? When will the Minister bring this Bill forward to the Dáil? When does the Government intend to call a referendum to put water services into the Constitution as a public utility?

First, I do remember the chronology of events very well. Regarding the issue of keeping the provision of water in public control and ownership, the Government has fulfilled that.

No, it has not.

Irish Water is entirely publicly owned and will remain so. Recently, the Government, in the context of the national development plan, NDP, allocated unprecedented funding to Irish Water for the development of water infrastructure across the length and breadth of the country.

The urgency and imperative right now is to fundamentally improve the water supply infrastructure. It is a key utility, and the State is investing unprecedented amounts of taxpayers' money to make sure that we get the big wastewater treatment plants through. These include the eastern and midlands project. It will be interesting to see if the House will support that very important public infrastructure. If it does not happen within a decade or so, the midlands, Dublin and other areas on the east coast will be running out of water. It is likewise with the wastewater treatment plant and the Dublin drainage project. Big projects are under way, and that is where all the focus has been and will continue to be.

It is arguable at this stage whether a referendum is really required at all in respect of this matter. There is unanimity in the House in respect of keeping it in public ownership. It will stay in public ownership. Of course, when it comes to constitutional amendments, the divil is always in the detail and in the framing of the language and the wording. That is always problematic and challenging at the best of times.

It has been ten years.

The more important point is that there are no proposals from anybody around the privatisation of Irish Water or any of the water services.

The more important focus for us is repairing and upgrading the existing infrastructure, but also expanding it. Utilities are key to the future of our society and economy, and that is why we are putting huge amounts of money and equity into Irish Water to make sure it has the capacity to do the type of work that is required. In the last three years, particularly in the context of the national development plan, the allocation underpins the significant growth and development of water infrastructure and supplies in this country. The key question will be whether we can get community and political buy-in to the kinds of projects that the country requires and avoid partisan rows that would undermine the national and public interest in terms of getting these projects done.

The Government has certainly not honoured its ten years of commitments, as I outlined. All those commitments have been broken. The Taoiseach has not answered the questions. We can only presume that he and the Government wish to keep the door open to the future privatisation of water services in this country.

The Taoiseach must know that if that happened, it would be an absolute disaster. We only need to look across the water to the UK to see this. The UK water sector struggles with a combination of massive debt, failing infrastructure and underinvestment. It is now generally accepted that the UK privatised-for-profit water services model is flawed. Profits and dividends are prioritised over modernisation. Thames Water, for instance, has a debt burden of about €20 billion and is facing collapse. The Taoiseach should close the door on privatisation, announce a referendum, as he and previous taoisigh committed to over the past ten years. He should honour those commitments.

I remember the negotiations when we were in opposition but part of the confidence and supply agreement to make sure the country had a Government, which is something the Deputy has never quite had to worry about because he is always in splendid isolation-----

What about the referendum?

-----and splendid opposition, which is his entitlement.

Abide by the rules.

The Taoiseach promised a referendum.

However, the point I am making is that what we negotiated was-----

If I could be allowed to answer-----

The Taoiseach has not honoured his commitment-----

The Deputy should allow the Taoiseach to answer.

Answer the question.

I am trying to be the Deputy is interrupting.

The Deputy is interrupting.

He is not answering the question; he is deflecting.