Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, Socialist Party) | Oireachtas source

I thank the ordinary people who participated in the Convention on the Constitution and produced a series of recommendations within the limited framework under which they had to work. It is the position of the Anti-Austerity Alliance that a left-wing Government would begin a more fundamental process than the Constitutional Convention. We would commence a debate in society with the aim of writing a new Constitution because the current Constitution is utterly unfit for purpose in today's society, as it was in the society in which it was written. We need a Constitution that places equality and social justice at its core, one which enshrines, economic, social, cultural and environmental rights as primary rights which are superior to the right to profit. We need a secular Constitution which enshrines the separation of church and State, unlike the current Constitution, and is democratic and socialist.

I welcome the recommendation from the Constitutional Convention on strengthening economic, social and cultural rights.

If that were done, it could make a real difference to people's lives, but it is clear that the Government has no interest in that happening. Let us suppose the right to a home were enshrined in the Constitution and were said to be higher than the right of a bank to maximise its return on a mortgage, the right of a landlord to squeeze as much as he can out a tenant or the right of developers to maximise their profits. That would make an immediate difference to ordinary people. It would blow away any idea that there is a constitutional problem with having proper rent controls. It would bring pressure on the Government to build the homes that are needed. The same applies in terms of the right to decent health care for all as opposed to the right to access second-tier health care. The same applies to the right to work and the right to strike. I also welcome the fact that a majority took the view that the rights of the environment should be enshrined in the Constitution.

Why is the Government not interested in that? Why do the people responsible in the Government say these matters need to be considered when it is obvious the Government will not consider them? It is clear that the Government does not want to constrain future Governments in having to meet the aspirations of people in terms of economic, social and cultural rights.

The Government and previous Governments were happy to constrain future Governments to implement a great deal of austerity. They were happy to sign up to the fiscal treaty, the six-pack and the two-pack. They had no problem constraining future Governments, including in respect of the potential to end up in other courts, etc. The problem arises when it comes to enshrining the right of people to a decent living standard. The Government has a problem with that. They fear a Portuguese-type situation. In that country under a relatively progressive constitution the citizens were able to take the Portuguese Government to court and win by way of rejecting some austerity measures. The Government's response says it all.

I also wish to reference the question of the separation of church and State. The convention did not get a chance to discuss this matter properly. We believe this is central. It is unacceptable that the State, from its inception, handed over the provision of many public services to the church to get away from its responsibilities and as an instrument of social control. That close connection between the church and the State was the context in which scandals such as the Magdalen laundries could take place. It is also the context in which people do not have the basic right to abortion, for example. We still have blasphemy in the Constitution. Despite the fine promises of the Minister of State, Deputy Aodhán Ó Ríordáin, we still have not seen a referendum on this issue.

My final point relates to the question of the future amending of the Constitution. A burning issue for many is the question of the repeal of the eighth amendment. The utter, deep and cynical hypocrisy of the Labour Party will not go unnoticed by ordinary people.

See this speech in context