Thomas Byrne (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 8:
In page 4, between lines 30 and 31, to insert the following:

“(8) The Forum established under section 7 of this Act shall not later than seven months after the passing of this Act, meet and consider a proposal to amend the Constitution of Ireland to incorporate a provision prohibiting the alienation of any share or shares in Irish Water or its assets or any part thereof and the Forum shall lay a copy of its recommendations in relation thereto before each House of the Oireachtas.
(9) Within one month of the recommendations of the Forum under subsection (8) being laid before each House of the Oireachtas, the Government shall outline to each House its proposals to implement the said recommendations of the Forum.”.

I have tabled this reasonable amendment to try to bridge the gap between the Seanad's powers on referenda and what the Minister is proposing. As we have already acknowledged, the Seanad does not have the power to initiate a referendum to amend the Constitution. Mar a dúramar cheana, níl an chumhacht ag an Seanad leasú a dhéanamh ar an mBunreacht nó reacht a thosú sa tSeanad chun leasú a dhéanamh ar an mBunreacht. Ní féidir leasú a dhéanamh ar an mBunreacht nó togra le sin a dhéanamh a chur i mBille eile nó rudaí eile uile. The Seanad's powers are quite limited with respect to constitutional referenda. We cannot initiate legislation to amend the Constitution and a proposal to amend the Constitution cannot be contained within other legislation.
People are very frustrated that their amendments have been ruled out of order. However, we are subject to the Constitution and we cannot do that and that is the reason. As I said earlier, I would like us to be subject to the Constitution and I would like our successors in the Seanad, and the Oireachtas as well, whether it is in ten, 20 or 30 years time, to be subject to a constitutional prohibition on selling Irish Water or any of its assets. We are looking for the prohibition on us initiating legislation to amend the Constitution to be imposed on both Houses of the Oireachtas and that both Houses would be prohibited from legislating to sell Irish Water or its assets. The Minister has not accepted that. He has gone for a plebiscite option which we say is deeply flawed.
My proposal is to ask the water forum that the Minister establishes in this legislation to look at this issue in a manner similar to the constitutional convention. I have suggested that it would report back within seven months. The legislation provides that the regulator has six months to get the administration up and running, or to announce it is up and running. I have therefore proposed seven months, to be reasonable about it. I ask that the forum would lay a copy of its recommendations - its report - in relation to its consideration of a proposal to amend the Constitution - to incorporate the provision that Members are talking about - before each House of the Oireachtas, and the amendment then would call for the Minister, within one month of the forum laying its recommendations before the Houses of the Oireachtas, to outline to the Houses his proposals to implement the recommendations.
I am trying to come half way in this amendment between what we want to do and what we cannot do, which is initiate a referendum. We cannot do that in the Seanad. What the Minister is suggesting, to hold a plebiscite, is deeply flawed. This is a body that the Minister is setting up in this legislation. The water forum has a specific function. I grant that. However, I suggest that we mandate it to statutorily do this, almost as a first task. It would look at this issue, get advice, consider it and then it can come back to the Houses of the Oireachtas and then the Minister can come to us. There is precedent for this - the constitutional convention. There are, of course, alternatives to this. The Constitutional Convention could be reconvened to discuss this. The committee of the Houses of the Oireachtas could discuss this. I am acknowledging in putting forward this amendment that there are issues concerning it. Some issues have been raised, such as where does one stop. Should the forest be protected? Should the fish be protected? Who should be protected in terms of an anti-privatisation agenda. However, that is an issue for discussion and it can be discussed.

How do we do it? I think it is reasonable. It is an attempt to come half way and the Minister should give it serious consideration. I will listen to what the Minister has to say but I am interested in hearing what colleagues have to say. Have they any other improvements to it or other alternatives they could suggest to meet the Minister half way?