Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank everyone who has contributed to this very interesting debate, for the contributions made, for some of the constructive suggestions that have come forth and for what, I believe, has been an important debate. I am grateful to have this opportunity on behalf of the Government to respond to the Second Report of the Convention on the Constitution. I stated at the start and I repeat now my thanks to all those participating in the convention, including the members of the public and the political members, for their work and participation, all those providing background support, and, of course, the chairman, Tom Arnold, who did such a good job.

I have listened with interest to the various contributions. As I said at the start of the debate, the Government welcomes the convention's report. We continue to be encouraged by the wholehearted engagement of the participants in the process. I note Deputy Ó Feargháil mentioned his party's original doubts and cynicism surrounding the value of the convention. I am pleased that he now recognises it is playing an important role and those participating in it and giving of their time are making valuable contributions. All the Deputies who spoke in the debate have acknowledged the sterling work done by the Constitutional Convention to date. It is particularly important to have citizens or individuals not elected to the Parliament and who are not part of some specialised elite working and engaging constructively with parliamentarians in the exercise of parliamentary democracy. All too frequently, those who contribute to the work of committees in the Houses and whose contributions are very welcome come from one stratum of society.

They are perceived as specialists in their areas and while their levels of expertise are of huge value, people who do not have recognised specialties are not given an opportunity to contribute. The convention has provided such an opportunity and I believe its model could provide a useful blueprint for bringing about greater public participation in public decision-making in the future.

Many Deputies made valid suggestions and offered ideas, which will contribute further to the debate on the convention's recommendations on advancing the role of women in public and political life. I invite all those who made contributions today, including the political parties represented in this House on the Opposition side, individual Deputies, Independent Members and Deputies right across the board, to contribute to the process in which the Government is engaged. If there are specific proposals they wish to make as to the content of an article that might implement the convention's views or which might contribute towards the deliberations on the appropriate replacement for Article 41.2, I would invite such a contribution. Moreover, my Department and the committee that is being established would greatly welcome that.

In inviting such contributions, however, I ask Members to have regard to the financial realities of the State. When eliminating an article or, rather, when putting to the people a proposal for the removal of an article that, as I stated earlier, clearly has proven to be of no benefit to women, that sought to label women as primarily having a role solely in the home and which was part of a philosophy that gave birth to the marriage bar on women working in the public service, consideration must be given to how to provide something that is appropriate, gender neutral and non-discriminatory but which also does not impose costs on the State and on taxpayers that the State cannot afford at present.

If the article is to be replaced by something appropriate, it must be replaced by a proposal that will receive substantial support by referendum from the people. This is the challenge with which the Government is confronted, in that it has from the convention a recommendation of change but not the proposal as to what might be the wording with regard to that change. There is a diversity of ideas in this area. Much of the work that has been done in this area has focused on the equality between men and women in the home, as opposed to one or other having a special role. While there have been suggestions about recognising the special role of parents in the home, from my recollection and from my academic writings in this area in years past, there has not been a proposal for a provision that would incorporate in full what is recommended and suggested by the convention in effectively extending it not simply to men and women in equality but to all carers, as well as to carers outside the home who provide caring. The issue of how that could be done, how meaningful it would be and what financial implications it might have is a matter of great complexity.

The terms of reference given to the convention indicated it effectively was asked to consider the current article and what change might be made to it. It was not part of the convention's remit expressly to propose that it simply be removed from the Constitution, which is another possibility, albeit not a proposal that has been made to the Government. However, as someone who has worked over the years in the areas of constitutional law and family law, I note there is an interesting legal issue surrounding whether its simple removal is another objective, bearing in mind the provisions to ensure equality between men and women in Article 40 of the Constitution. Consequently, there are very interesting and difficult legal issues in giving effect to a proposal for change and for removal of a provision that reflects a philosophy of the 1930s, which imbued Irish society for the following decades. Many years ago, I wrote about this particular article and personally I always have regarded it as inappropriate, as not in the interests of women and as effectively consigning women solely to a role in the home without actually ensuring any financial protections for women in that role. Consequently, while I am pleased the Government has the recommendation from the convention, it is so broad that there are substantial complex issues to be addressed as to how to proceed on foot of that recommendation. In this context, I repeat my invitation to go beyond today's debate to Members of the House who might give further consideration to this in the coming months and to what an appropriate alternative might be to the content of the current Constitution.

It is my objective to ensure that both the House and the Government approach the convention's recommendations with a positive mindset. I believe Deputy Catherine Murphy stated - she will correct me if I am wrong - that before the convention is asked to do any further work, the Government should get on with implementing or responding appropriately to recommendations made by the convention. I believe any fair-minded person who considered the manner in which the Government has approached the first and second reports would regard it as having treated the reports with great seriousness and as advancing matters along the road proposed by the convention. The Government also will regard all further reports with seriousness. It never was an objective to create a situation in which a group of people would meet over weekends to do serious work and to engage in serious deliberations and for the Government then simply to ignore what they had to say and to consign their reports to gather dust on shelves. One reason there was a self-imposed obligation by the Government to respond to reports within a specific time in this House was to ensure this did not and could not occur, and I can give every assurance it will not occur.

In the context of some references made to the role of women in politics, unlike Deputy Ó Fearghaíl who spoke in a positive manner, Deputy Troy could not resist the temptation to give the Government side a kick, arising out of the previous referendum held over the weekend. In the context of that referendum, I note the Government fulfilled its commitment to put the issue to the people. The people made a decision and that decision is respected. In the context of any referendum that may be held arising out of the different proposals coming from the convention, it will be a question of a proposal being put to the people, who will make their decision. However, in the context of any proposals that derive from the recommendations of the convention, it is important that they be given time to be developed where there has not been a specific proposal. Even where a specific constitutional article has been proposed, or variants of particular articles, as has already arisen in one report, there will be a need to give it careful consideration to ensure it will fulfil the objectives intended, that it will be understood by the people in a referendum and that the people be given an adequate opportunity to understand what is being proposed and to debate it.

I am proud that the parties in government are meeting their obligations and promises in this area. Personally, as someone who has favoured constitutional reform in a number of areas, I regard the work of the convention as very exciting. It is opening up doors that in some areas have been closed and is prioritising some issues, at the request of the Government, that often get put on the back-burner because other issues are perceived to be more urgent. I reiterate that I very much welcome what is being done in this area.

In the context of references to the impetus to increase women's participation in politics, it is fair to state that all parties and all party leaders made a significant contribution to the debate that took place at the conference organised last year by the Minister of State, Deputy Kathleen Lynch.

I have already outlined many of the positive actions, and I will not repeat them, taken by the Government to foster gender equality since taking office two and half years ago. I never expect Deputy Clare Daly to acknowledge anything positive done or achieved by Government. It is rather unfortunate that she was the only Member of this House who descended simply to abusing some of those who contributed to today's debate. I reject, in its entirety, her inappropriate comment that Members on this side of the House, in their contributions to this debate, were engaged in patronising claptrap. This is an issue we take seriously. It would be good if when making her contribution in this House she could restrain herself, on occasion, from engaging in unnecessary personal abuse which only devalues the substance of what else she has to say.

I referred previously to our EU Presidency conference on the topic of women in the workforce at which the OECD argued strongly that all EU member states, including Ireland, need to increase female labour market participation to stimulate economic growth. EU Employment Commissioner Andor also stressed the importance of addressing gender equality at the same conference and for much the same reasons. This is something that I and the Government fully support and recognise. The further advancement of women in the workforce is not an issue that can be dealt with in isolation. It is part and parcel of the focus of Government to get people back to work. We have more than 400,000 unemployed in this country and while the number unemployed is reducing it is still substantial. Greater female participation in the workforce is inextricably connected with the growth of jobs in this country and what the Government can do to stimulate jobs being created by the private sector and to ensure the barriers that may exist for women in the workforce are addressed.

I want to acknowledge what was said about certain local government matters. I personally find it extraordinary that so few women are in top positions in the administration side of local government. The overwhelming majority of county managers are men and I do not know the reason for that. In the context of the huge numbers of women who are involved in the administration of local government in the different sections of local authorities across this country, I do not know the reason there is this male dominance. In terms of the equality side of my brief, that is an issue on which I will have a conversation with my colleague, Deputy Phil Hogan, the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, who I know would have a concern in this respect. That is a stark anomaly. I do not know if it is to do with the system used to make appointments in the context of the interview boards that are formulated but it is particularly odd at this stage that this remains the position. It is an issue that I, as Minister with responsibility for equality, would like to see addressed.

I thank Deputies Ó Fearghaíl, Mac Lochlainn, Maureen O'Sullivan, Mitchell O'Connor, Troy, Catherine Byrne, Catherine Murphy and Clare Daly for the contributions made on an important issue which is one we are addressing as part of our agenda for change to bring the institutions in this State, the Constitution of this State and the manner in which government is conducted in this State fully and totally into the 21st century, but when it comes to constitutional change at the end of the day it is the people who are the final arbiters. I hope the discussion we have had today on the very interesting report made by the convention will lead to further public discourse and discussion over the next 12 months. I look forward to bringing to government by the end of October next year the results of the workings of the groups that are being formed and again to come before the House on those matters. I also look forward to any further substantive submissions that any Member of this House or any individual outside it may wish to make to contribute to the process.

See this speech in context