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

Ar dtús, ba mhaith liom a rá go bhfuil díomá orm toisc go mbéimid ag vótáil anocht mar ceapaim go mbéimid go léir ag aontú leis an ngnó atá againn anocht.

I heard the Minister of State speak about the spring statement as if this was a justification for not accepting the Bill. The spring statement is one matter: enshrining these rights in the Constitution is another. It is disrespectful to the Constitutional Convention that such is the attitude that is being taken. If we are serious about economic, social and cultural rights which are valid and relevant, then we will enshrine them in the Constitution.

The Constitution was drawn up at a time when economic, social and cultural rights did not have the profile they have now, but now they do it is time to bring them into the Constitution. In 1937, there were a lot of positive elements in Bunreacht na hÉireann. Since then, we have signed up to quite a number of human rights instruments and charters. Looking back at what was there in 1937, there was a right to education - free primary education; there were the rights of parents of the child; there was protection for freedom of expression, of assembly, of association and the Irish language; and the right to property. There were other positive aspects to it as well. I was struck by one or two of the quotes:

The State shall strive to promote the welfare of the whole people by securing and protecting as effectively as it may a social order in which justice and charity shall inform [everything]...

especial care [of] the economic interests of the weaker sections of the community, and, where necessary, to contribute to the support of the infirm, the widow, the orphan, and the aged.

There is another paragraph on the "health of workers".

If we had stronger enshrining of economic, social and cultural rights, we would not have seen some of the policies, cuts and budget decisions that we have seen in the intervening years and it is vital that we look seriously at what is being proposed here tonight.

Article 45 states: "The principles of social policy ... are intended for the general guidance of the Oireachtas... and not shall not be cognisable by any Court under any of the provisions of this Constitution." At the briefing last week, which Deputy Pringle organised, where we were addressed by Amnesty International, we were looking at that.

The point was made that the State will progressively realise these principles. It is subject to maximum available resources which, on the one hand could be regarded as allowing an excuse for government not to have the resources while on the other hand, allowing a freedom on which we could all agree, including those on the Government side.

If the Government were to accept the Bill it would be an acknowledgement of the kind of society we want for Ireland. By specifically including economic, social and cultural rights in our Constitution we are saying that we are committed to a just, inclusive and fair society. I have acknowledged what is positive in the Constitution. What is being proposed in this Bill complements existing rights. This is not an issue for the left, for the right, for the centre, left of centre or right of centre, it is something for the whole country, for all the citizens in this country.

I was a member of the Constitutional Convention, along with Deputy Catherine Murphy. A total of 85% of the convention voted in favour of amending the Constitution to include these rights. The Government made certain commitments as a result of recommendations from the convention, such as to respond within a certain time-frame, but that is not happening. This is also the case with regard to other recommendations. The response to economic, social and cultural rights was to have been given last July so we are running behind. Yet last week on two occasions the Dáil was left without any business to discuss. It was because legislation moved much quicker than was anticipated but why was there not provision for another debate such as this one? Equally why could a Friday not be designated as a day for considering some of the recommendations?

The Bill is about enshrining these rights in our Constitution and, in particular, the principle of human dignity which underpins these rights. I believe we can move forward by enshrining these principles and rights and to allow for what can be managed within existing resources.

I refer to another poll which said that 81% of respondents agreed with the Government expenditure being based on rights. That is very significant. I put forward a Private Members' motion about a human rights-based budget and even though there was a lot of support from Government speakers acknowledging the validity of my proposal the motion was voted down. Tonight's Bill is as a result of discussions with organisations who are working directly on the ground with very marginalised and vulnerable people.

I refer to other aspects of the debate in the Constitutional Convention which was very open and frank. Aspects considered included the meaning of soft rights and hard rights. The debate considered the lack of concrete proposals and unintended consequences and the role of government, Parliament and the Judiciary. There was a particular discussion around the right to housing. The question was whether the right to housing meant the right to a two-bedroom apartment, a three-bedroom house, a bedsit or a bed in a hostel. The question of whether we can accept these rights without constitutional reform was also discussed. The point was made that other bodies exist which could ensure the rights of citizens such as the Ombudsman and various watchdog bodies. The rights could be protected by EU and international law and it could also be done by reforming the Dáil or through legislation or local government reform. These are all valid arguments. However, the upshot from the Constitutional Convention was that 85% of participants were of the view that all those other suggestions were not sufficient and that these rights should be enshrined in our Constitution. They are important as principles in our vision for the kind of society we want.

We should consider the Scottish model when looking at housing and the right to housing. In Scotland there is a legislative basis to the right to a home which has changed local authority practice. The Scottish system therefore engages with people at risk of homelessness, not when they are homeless. In view of this right, the local authority must be informed of anyone in the private rented sector who is threatened with eviction. This legislation was agreed by political consensus. I have a Bill on this subject waiting to make it onto the floor of the House. I worked with housing organisations and the Bill would introduce similar legislation here meaning that the local authority would not wait until a person is homeless and that it could deal with the situation beforehand. Scotland recognised that having people homeless and in emergency accommodation is very expensive - we know this too - not to mention the other emotional and psychological costs. Glasgow was able to close its emergency accommodation because it was not needed whereas in this country our housing situation is worsening.

I refer to the benefits of enshrining such rights in the Constitution. It will be a guide to legislators. What is being proposed is not extreme because they are part of the international body of human rights. They allow for transparent and evidence-based decisions. Ireland signed the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in 1973 and ratified it in 1989. If those rights had been enshrined in our Constitution some of messes might have been avoided. For example, the right to just and favourable conditions of work would have avoided the whole chaos over zero hour contracts and the threat of privatisation. If everyone had the right to join a trade union and the right to strike we would not have employers giving ultimatums to their workers not to be in a union or paying lip-service to the idea of negotiating with their staff.

I raised the issue on Leaders' Questions last week of children living in appalling situations in homeless accommodation, in direct provision and children in care because their mothers cannot access housing. The protection of the right to housing would mean these situations would not arise. With regard to the right to a higher standard of physical and mental health, we are one of the few EU countries which does not have designated mental health nurses in accident and emergency departments to treat those who present with mental health issues. Huge progress has been made with regard to the right to education but we still have low rates of progression to third level from certain socio-economic groups. Our society has income poverty and has failed to meet the health needs of some of our citizens. We have an appalling situation so needs are not being met. We are increasing inequality.

Both the 1916 Proclamation and the democratic programme of the First Dáil were underpinned by principles of equality of treatment. This Bill wants to amend the Constitution to achieve this equality of treatment. I acknowledge Deputy Pringle's Bill and I acknowledge Deputy Healy who has permitted it to be promoted in his Private Members' time. It is a challenging Bill but what have we to be afraid of by enshrining human rights in our Constitution.

See this speech in context