Maureen O'Sullivan (Dublin Central, Independent) | Oireachtas source

Ar an chéad dul síos, ba mhaith liom an coinbhinsún a mholadh de réir a méid oibre atá á dheanamh aige ón tús.

I have been critical of some of the topics chosen, or not chosen, and the length of time allocated for some topics. I still cannot understand why the Seanad question went to a referendum first and did not go to the convention. That would have been the logical, common sense approach, particularly as the convention was discussing electoral reform - a topic we had over two weekends. The convention would have been the ideal place to begin that debate. Notwithstanding all of that, the Constitutional Convention has been working well.

Constitutions have to decide on and reflect the values of society. Overall, our Constitution does contain much that is good. It is democratic and guarantees freedom, equality and justice for citizens. It may not always have been interpreted that way, however, for the good of all citizens. Some citizens have been badly served by the Constitution, including homosexuals and people with mental health issues. I am conscious that today is world mental health day and there are people with mental health issues in our society whose rights are not respected.

Overall, however, we have been fortunate that the Constitution did build on the Proclamation of 1916 to which equality was central. Deputy Catherine Murphy and I are the two Independent Deputies on the convention and we have a 100% attendance record. Continuity and consistency in attendance is important.

We cannot discuss the convention without acknowledging the work of the officials, including the chairman and other staff, before, during and after it. I acknowledge in particular their work with the wording of the ballot papers, which has been problematic. The discussions have been open and frank but I still think the plenaries are top heavy with political contributions. The round-table discussions, however, do ensure that everyone has a voice. The feedback signifies that everyone feels their view is respected and heeded, and that no one dominates the round-table discussions.

The February session of the convention was about amending the clause on the role of women in the home, encouraging their greater participation in public life and increasing their participation in politics. Were changes to the Constitution necessary in this regard? Article 40.1 suggests gender equality because it states "All citizens shall, as human persons, be held equal before the law."

Article 16.1.1^o states: "Every citizen without distinction of sex who has reached the age of twenty-one years, and who is not placed under disability or incapacity by this Constitution or by law, shall be eligible for membership of Dáil Éireann." There is a general consensus about gender equality, but is that enough? There is also the recognition of a special role for the family in Article 41.1.1^o, which refers to the family as "the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society". Article 41.1.2^o refers to the family as "the necessary basis of social order and as indispensable to the welfare of the Nation and the State".

Article 41.2.1^o states: "In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved." Article 41.2.2^o states: "The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home." I am not too sure why that Article has not been challenged, particularly in times of austerity.

All the papers presented at the convention were interesting but one in particular, by Professor Gerry Whyte from the Trinity College School of Law, gave examples where Article 41 featured in litigation in regard to gender discrimination and recognising work done in the home. In some cases the article was used to support preferential treatment for deserted wives and not to justify the exemption of women from jury service. It was not interpreted as allowing discrimination against widowers concerning their eligibility to adopt.

I liked Chief Justice Denham's observation when she said that Article 41.2 does not assign women to a domestic role, but recognises the significant role played by wives and mothers in the home. That does not mean to exclude them from other activities, but it is really about recognising that the work women do in the home is of immense benefit to society.

Mr. Justice Murray presented an interesting paper on this article which covered fathers. He sees that the Constitution implicitly recognises, similarly, the value of a man's contribution in the home as a parent. One wonders therefore if there is a need for change. There have been various reports, some of which have suggested deleting Article 41.2. Subsequent reports called for modification, while another report sought the Constitution to recognise the significant contribution of both males and females caring for children and elderly relatives. Some wanted to retain Article 41.2 but in a revised, gender-neutral form.

All of that debate was going on before the Constitutional Convention, and it continued at the convention. There is no doubt that the sections on women and the family do come from an older traditional view of the family - the male and female married with children. However, we know that Ireland has seen a massive change in terms of the family. We have different relationships now, including lone parents, grandparents in loco parentis, and same-sex partner families. Another dynamic is the changing nature of society with stay-at-home fathers and those who care for dependants, other than children, in the home. That also formed part of the discussions at the convention.

We know what the convention came up with last February. One point that emerged is that changes concerning women must also take account of changes to the definition of the family. Some 88% were against leaving the relevant article as it is. If it were to be changed, 88% wanted to amend or modify it. The vast majority, 98%, wanted to make it gender neutral and acknowledge other carers in the home. There was a narrower margin for including carers beyond the home. We know of the debate about the wording including "endeavour to support" and "provide a reasonable level of support", but on average the convention as a whole favoured a reasonable level of State support.

There were interesting results on the aspect of increasing women's participation in politics. The main one that stood out for me was that the majority favoured non-constitutional methods and routes in order to increase participation by women in politics. They sought Government action but I do not really believe that Article 41.2 has prevented me, or any other woman, from doing whatever we wanted to do in terms of a career or becoming involved in public life and politics.

Perhaps adding "she" to the language of the Constitution would be a start. However, there are certainly reasons, which have nothing to do with the Constitution, why more women are not involved in public life and politics. We know that girls tend to do better than boys in State examinations. We also know that women are the heart and lifeblood of communities. Women are predominantly involved in so many civil society groups and voluntary organisations. Why do women not progress into more senior levels of public life? Sometimes women would see it as regression, rather than progression.

We have had two female Presidents but not one female Taoiseach. The stark statistic is that 15% of Dáil candidates are women and 15% of Deputies are women. In the local elections the figure is 16%, which is not much better. The Dáil has never been less than 85% male, which might account for certain dysfunctional aspects and the length of time it takes to do things. The Westminster Parliament has seen the rate of participation by women increase from 9% to 22% and the French from 11% to 27%. I acknowledge that in the constituency of Dublin Central we have the perfect gender balance: two men and two women Deputies.

The suggestions from the Constitutional Convention are a way forward but in themselves will not bring about a greater participation of women in public and political life. Many reports have been done on the difficulties involved and child care is seen as being one. There are long unsocial hours involved in being a Deputy but I cannot understand why this is only related to women who are mothers and not to men who fathers. It is downgrading men and seems to imply that they have no role in rearing their children.

Research tells us that the greater the participation by women in parliament the lower the level of corruption. More women means a more consensual style of politics, rather than the current confrontational style. We know that parliament would be more consultative. The evidence is that women conduct politics in a more open and transparent way.

I am on record as being against quotas for women, while I accept that politics would be much better with more women involved. Women are significantly under represented but I do not see quotas as the way forward because then we would also have to examine having quotas for various age groups, socio-economic groups, certain jobs and professions, and our new communities who are not represented.

A mind-shift is required, particularly on the part of political parties, because there is no opposition to women standing as Independents.

We know that currently most Deputies are male and that incumbents have a higher re-election rate. Will the parties sacrifice seats to give more woman an opportunity? While quotas were a factor in the increase in Rwanda, the increase in the number of women elected in the Scandinavian countries predated the introduction of quotas.

Amendment of the Constitution is only one step, although a significant one. I acknowledge the value of the work of the Constitutional Convention on this matter. However, it is important account is taken of the sections on the family. One of the groups, Women for Election, suggested a wording which the Minister might consider, namely, "That the State shall endeavour by appropriate means to promote equality in politics."

I acknowledge the commitments given by the Minister in his opening speech. The Constitutional Convention, which is to complete its work shortly, will discuss the issue of blasphemy at its November meeting. Consideration will then be given in the new year to the establishment of a further convention and possible topics for discussion. In this regard, many submissions and suggestions have already been received. I believe another Constitutional Convention should not be established until the issues, reports and recommendations of the current convention have been followed through in a significant and meaningful way.

I acknowledge what the Minister said earlier but I believe we must first deal with the issues addressed by the current Constitutional Convention before establishing another one.

See this speech in context