Alex White (Dublin South, Labour) | Oireachtas source

When I heard Deputy Brian Stanley introduce the motion the last night, initially I wondered whether it was essentially a piece of politics in the context of a major political controversy or a genuine attempt by Sinn Féin and the Deputy, in particular, to introduce a new provision to the Constitution, something which I and, I hope, all Members of the House value highly, and have a debate on it. The Deputy did address the constitutional issue in his contribution in ways with which I do not agree. I was reassured that perhaps this was a genuine effort on the part of Sinn Féin to examine whether a new provision in the Constitution might be desirable or necessary.

When I came into the House half an hour ago, I did not hear all of Deputy Dessie Ellis's contribution, but he did address the proposal to amend the Constitution. I then heard Deputy Peadar Tóibín who managed to make a speech without once mentioning the proposal tabled by his party. When we come into the Chamber for debates, we know that there is a wide degree of latitude in discussing the subject matter of a Member's speech on an issue. Members range far and wide, something we all do and understand, but this is a Bill to amend the Constitution of Ireland. I would have thought Deputies Peadar Tóibín and Seán Crowe would have done better than reducing the debate to ridiculing ideas or tactics to reduce the usage of water in the home. There are children in the Visitors Gallery who could probably tell us a great deal more about how best to properly conserve water, whether by showering less, not filling a kettle when it is not needed and all if the other things one could do in a house to save water. Deputy Seán Crowe can ridicule such things, but they are important elements of what we should be doing to conserve water. He should not ridicule them. The debate is not about that issue but about Bunreacht na hÉireann, the most important document we have and which sets out the basis of our democracy, from a legal point of view. The Deputies opposite could have done themselves a greater service if they had addressed that issue.

Deputy Peadar Tóibín referred to capital expenditure and issues far and wide from his party's proposal. However, he exposed himself and his party because he referred constantly to capital investment being needed, but he never mentioned from where this would come and the economic or financial policy that should underlie all of the capital expenditure he said was necessary.

It is amazing that Deputy Dessie Ellis should say that yesterday's proposal to amend legislation to include a provision to state Irish Water would not be privatised without a plebiscite of the people is only a legislative proposal. What respect do the Members Opposite have for the House if they reduce legislation to something that is meaningless? The House passes legislation and we will include a legislation a requirement that a particular action cannot occur unless a plebiscite of the people supports it. That is capable of ensuring precisely the outcome the Members opposite say they want to achieve, but they quickly reduce the debate to a piece of political knockabout because that is what they came here to do. Unfortunately, I have reached the conclusion that this is not a genuine proposal to amend the Constitution in a manner in which it would be in the interests of the people but rather a piece of political knockabout to try to expose or flush people out or talk about the Labour Party until the cows come home. That is all Members opposite really want to do. What interest do they have in the Constitution? What contribution do they want to make to changing the Constitution to allow for socio-economic rights, possibly including a right to water? Where does Deputy Martin Ferris stand when he refers to our natural offshore resources? Where is his proposal to amend the Constitution to provide for this? He said the timing of the debate was interesting. It is; the motion has only been brought forward by Sinn Féin to gain a political advantage.

As Members of the House, we should work together on how we want to amend the Constitution. We had a Constitutional Convention last year. Let us participate in a real debate on the Constitution. I am afraid that I am critical of Deputy Brian Stanley. An amendment to the personal rights and equality provisions of the Constitution under Article 40 is not the way to proceed if he is genuine about this issue. He needs to examine Article 10 and the balance of rights. How would his proposal be balanced with the property rights provided for in the Constitution? I have raised issues about property rights in the Constitution and their exacting nature. We should examine the property rights provided for in the Constitution, but we should be serious about the issue. If Sinn Féin regards it as its Constitution - I hope it does - it should examine these issues.

I take exception to references by Deputy Martin Ferris in the context of this debate to my party not acting in the interests of the country in what we do. If we were to have a debate on whether his party had acted in the interests of the country, we would be here until midnight. If we want to talk about the Constitution, let us do so. It belongs to the people of Ireland. Let us be serious and responsible about such a debate and not make it the subject matter of political knockabout, as I am afraid the Deputies opposite have done.

See this speech in context