Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent) | Oireachtas source

That is not an unforeseen consequence because the issue does not arise.

On group water schemes, there is a clear distinction made between public and private water infrastructure. As Deputy Joan Collins stated, a group water scheme must submit an application to a local authority for approval before it can operate. It must be distinguishable in terms of its ownership, in other words, it must be a co-operative, trust or company. The distinction between a public and a private water system is already made in law.

On regulation, the European Commission, in a case related to water quality, accepted and recognised this distinction and determined that Ireland had a regulatory role in group water schemes because they provided water for their members. The Commission required Ireland to set regulations for the quality of water provided by group water schemes. If it is the Minister's argument that the wording of the proposed constitutional amendment could have the unintended consequence of breaking down this distinction, it must be the case that it has already been broken down because there is a clearly accepted distinction made between public and private assets. The wording of the amendment would not interfere with it.