Thomas Byrne (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I refer to the issue of taking part in EU defence missions. What Irish Government would take us into war? What Irish Government would have us involved in conscription? We changed the Constitution in order to allay the fears of the Irish people in that regard. We introduced the triple lock under the United Nations mandate, and approval of the Dáil and this House is required before we enter into EU defence mechanisms. This is normal. The law of unintended consequences is not a law. In fact, many of the consequences of the Eighth Amendment - I support the Eighth Amendment - were outlined in the Dáil and Seanad debates at the time and are available to be read. Some of the issues that arose as a result of that amendment were predicted. They were not all unintended consequences. People opposed it and were cautious about that amendment. It is well known that there were changes to the amendment and that the Government had concerns, both in the Fianna Fáil party and in the Fine Gael party at the time. If the law of unintended consequences is now considered by the Government as a reason for not amending the Constitution, then we would never have a Constitution in the first place and nothing would ever be changed in case someone would interpret it differently in the future. As a Legislature all we can do is to do our best to encapsulate the values which are permanent and unchangeable except with the consent of the people. This section does not do this. The more I read the section, the more I regard it as minimalist - as Senator Ó Murchú said - because it only talks about the alienation of shares in Irish Water; it does not talk about the sale, lease, letting or licensing of those shares or of the business or assets of Irish Water. As I said previously, the national lottery was effectively privatised by simply issuing a licence to a private company to operate it. Who would have imagined, in the Labour Party of the 1980s - which was in government with Fine Gael and which established the national lottery at the end of its term - that a private company would be asked to run it and to take the profits from it? The then Minister - it may have been Barry Desmond, but I cannot remember, as I was only a child at the time, like the Minister, Deputy Kelly, and the Minister of State, Deputy Coffey - who introduced the national lottery, had he been faced with Senator O'Donnell, as someone who has expressed trenchant views about the privatisation of the lottery, would have given the same answer that the Minister, Deputy Kelly, gave, which is "Who could have imagined it?". The issue of the national lottery is not an issue of principle for me, as it is for Senator O'Donnell, but she is entitled to her view and she has expressed it eloquently. She would have been given the same answer at the time by the then Minister, which was "What Irish Government would do this?", but 30 years later it was done. I have no particular difficulty on that issue. However, we are looking at 30 and 40 years down the road. We are looking at those values that set us apart as a society, the values we hold dear.

The minimum change I am looking for, which does not really change the substance of it, is to have the water forum at least discuss this issue and bring forward recommendations to the Minister and for the Minister to report back. This is the proposal in my amendment. I ask the Government to consider my amendment. At the very least, it gives the forum a substantial job to do, and there is a precedent in the Constitutional Convention.