Mr. Séamas Ó Tuathail:

I will jump to the conclusion, which is the appropriateness of constitutional protection. I say that the Constitution is the appropriate mechanism to ensure that provision of water is protected from privatisation into the future. It is clear that it is for the people, who are sovereign under the Constitution, to decide whether they wish to amend their Constitution in this manner, on a critical matter of public policy, which is of grave public concern.

I would like to say a few words on the issue of private wells and group water schemes. Private wells and group water schemes are clearly distinguishable from the public water system. If group water schemes were part of the public water system, there would be no need for a provision for the transfer of ownership, in order for them to become part of the public system, by being taken in charge, voluntarily or otherwise. Their privately held assets and associated rights are also protected under Articles 40 and 43 of the Constitution, dealing with property rights, and the same principles apply to private water infrastructure in dwellings and commercial buildings as they are equally privately owned.

Finally, I will come back to Ms Graham's point as I read and heard it. I have the highest regard for Ms Graham's contribution. She has said that the nature of our topography and population dispersal means that we have an extensive number of small, mainly surface water sources, rather than single large aquifers, which can be the case in other countries. The Geological Survey of Ireland is a State body. I can recall some years ago being told that there is a huge aquifer on the border between Dublin and Kildare which could supply Dublin's industrial and domestic needs for 30 years. That is my own sense and experience of this matter. The aquifers and that position should be examined and the Irish Geological Survey should readily and probably have already published that information.

Ms Graham is pointing out in terms of privatisation that both Houses of the Oireachtas would have to pass a resolution approving such a proposal. I agree with Ms Graham on that, but again point to concern for the people who are worried about their domestic water supply being taken into private ownership. A majority of voters in a plebiscite would have to give their approval to the proposal. The Minister would then have to initiate legislation to privatise Irish Water or alienate any share held by the Government. I do not entirely agree with that, given the structure that exists at the minute, but the way to deal with that fear is to support the constitutional amendment proposed by Deputy Joan Collins.

Finally, Ms Graham has quite honestly pointed out that the Minister reserves his position to propose a Government amendment to the wording on Committee Stage. That threat is there. I should perhaps not call it a threat, but that possibility is there. It would not be mentioned by Ms Graham if there was not some reality to it. Finally, issues around the wording of an amendment also arise with water infrastructure ownership categories, and these include private boreholes, private group water schemes, private group schemes that are sourcing water from the public network or water infrastructure located on privately owned land. None of those four categories, in my submission, would be affected by the proposed amendment to the Constitution. That amendment - and I will use a phrase borrowed from the recent swearing in of the newly elected American President - is aimed at preserving, protecting and defending the public right to water, as heretofore we have enjoyed it. Má tá ceist ar bith, a Chathaoirligh------