Katherine Zappone (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I again welcome the Minister to the House. I appreciated many of his comments yesterday and his willingness to engage with the Seanad in the light of the contributions he was expecting to be made. There has been a great deal of expertise this morning reflective of what the Minister anticipated. I support Senator Sean D. Barrett's amendment on which he has brought his economic expertise to bear. We have also benefited from the expertise of politicians on the other side of the House who have significant experience in politics. We have also heard from cultural historians who speak with great eloquence and there has been legal analysis. It is great, therefore, to participate in the debate.

I am also one of those who argue that public ownership can ultimately only be guaranteed by a constitutional referendum, an issue on which I commented yesterday, but if we cannot have this, the amendment would represent a way to plug the gap, as Senator Labhrás Ó Murchú said. There are still a few holes in the proposal to have a plebiscite. It should be made as strong as possible to reflect public opinion. I appreciate the Minister's comments both at the beginning and the conclusion of the debate yesterday evening and his bona fide commitment to oppose the privatisation of Irish Water. That is what the amendment and others are trying to do. The only amendments we can make to this section relate to holding a plebiscite. Deputies tabled amendments in the Dáil to provide for the holding of a constitutional referendum. My understanding is that they were ruled out of order because constitutional referendum proposals could only be accepted if the legislation solely related to them. Several of us made efforts this morning which were also ruled out of order to move beyond the holding of a plebiscite to a constitutional referendum. Article 46.2 provides that every proposal "for an amendment of this Constitution shall be initiated in Dáil Éireann as a Bill". The Dáil and Seanad amendments seeking the holding of a referendum have been ruled out of order for different reasons; therefore, Deputies and Senators do not have the power to change the Government's view that a plebiscite is the best way to guarantee public ownership. The Constitution guarantees that we, as law-makers, can privatise but internal rules block us such that we cannot propose a constitutional guarantee of public ownership. Only the Government can do this, which is a pity because via this single decision the Minister could secure the goodwill of a huge swathe of the people.

In his opening remarks the Minister offered us a few paragraphs on why that was not possible. The first paragraph related to complexity, an issue on which Senator Terry Leyden elaborated, which was helpful. The second paragraph indicated a slippery slope argument in that if we were to do this in respect of water services, what about similar referendums on other infrastructure considered to be strategically important?

In his concluding remarks the Minister mentioned the problem of unintended consequences. He said he had consulted the Attorney General, which I appreciate, and mentioned a few arguments coming back. Did her office conduct a scenario analysis of unintended consequences? One can only think about such consequences if one has a wording. Was it using this wording that the Minister had thought of unintended consequences or did he have another wording? I wonder whether that happened while acknowledging it is not the Government's habit to make the Attorney General's advice available to law-makers, although I still do not understand this. It would be helpful for him to provide us with a little more by way of rationale in that regard. He is nodding his head and I look forward him to doing so.

In the absence of having any power as Senators to continue to find ways to secure a constitutional referendum in order that Irish Water can be placed in public ownership, our position is that we can only ask. It feels a little like begging because the Government has the power to reconsider. I strongly support the amendment to strengthen the plebiscite. I am looking forward to, and anticipating, some of the arguments from Senator Thomas Byrne whose amendments might be a creative way of ensuring a referendum. We will debate them later. I affirm the questions asked by Senator David Cullinane and hope the Minister will reply to them. Will the Government bring forward amending legislation to propose the holding of a referendum?

We have some good examples of wording as proposed by Members of the Dáil, Senator Craughwell and the Sinn Féin Senators. If that is not the case, why will the Minister not do this? I hope the Minister will answer those two questions and will affirm the encouragement of Senator Ó Murchú that he will not give up and will go back to Cabinet on this issue.