Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance) | Oireachtas source

As I listened to the speakers from Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael talk about why they will not support the adoption of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in the Constitution, for some reason the word "sophistry" sprang to mind. I looked up the definition of sophistry. It comes from the Greek sophist, and refers to the use of clever but false arguments especially with the intention of deceiving. That is what we got from Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael, namely, very erudite and clever arguments as to why we should not sign up to basic rights like equal rights for men and women which might, for example, address gender inequality and the pay gap.

The covenant refers to just and favourable conditions of work, equal pay for equal work, the right of trade unions to function freely, the right of protection and assistance for young persons and the right of everyone to housing and the continuous improvement of living standards and the right to education. Does any Government need the discretion not to deliver on those things? Is that some sort of defence of democracy? It is not; it is all about money.

We heard the quote from Mr. McElligott from the Department of Finance, which removed references in the original Constitution to try to make the rights in it cognisable by law so that they were more than just pious aspirations and were instead rights that citizens could legally enforce from the State. The Departments of Finance and Justice and Equality said that they could not possibly give legally enforceable rights to people. In other words, they did not want to give them rights that mean anything at all on basic things like those I have mentioned.

I want to say why we desperately need legally enforceable rights. I have received a call from a young student and journalist in DIT, one of our major national educational institutions. I have been told about a decision that will affect students on the access programme in DIT. The programme enables students from disadvantaged backgrounds to attend third level education. As of this year, DIT is insisting that all students on the access programme have to be Garda vetted before entering the institution. This has never happened in any other college.

The rest of the student body in DIT who enter through the normal CAO system are not Garda vetted unless they are studying a specific course related to working with children, such as social work. Only a small number of the general student body will be Garda vetted for specific reasons related to their courses, but those from disadvantaged communities will, as a matter of course, be Garda vetted. It is a specific form of discrimination against people from disadvantaged communities, and suggests that they are somehow more prone to criminal behaviour, the possible abuse of children or other behaviours which mean that the Garda needs to look into their character, background and history. It is outrageous.

Students who are victims of that policy should be able to take legal action against DIT because it is denying them a right under the covenant, which states that higher education should be made equally accessible to all on the basis of capacity. This DIT policy is outrageous and students should have legal recourse and rights that are enforceable against DIT.

Young teachers are working beside people who are doing the same job. They should receive equal pay for the same work, but because they happen to have been recruited a couple of years later than those they are working with they can be paid less. It is a form of blatant discrimination which has no justification or basis. They should have legally enforceable rights to hold the State or their employer, which, in most cases, is the State, responsible for addressing that discrimination.

Housing is a critical issue and has been referred to by many Deputies. I recently mentioned a young mother with a four year old daughter, a family which has suffered a terrible history of abuse. I will not go into details. They are currently homeless and were told by homeless services that despite the fact that the girl attends school in Monkstown Farm and the family comes from the greater Dún Laoghaire area, they will have to stay in a hostel above a pub in Francis Street.

Many vulnerable young mothers and children are being sent to completely inappropriate so-called homeless accommodation which means that the welfare of children is at risk. The future, protection and welfare of those children is at risk, not to mind that of their mothers. It is completely unacceptable and is a result of the failure of the State to provide adequate and secure housing for them.

We have a long history of an absolutely chronic, systematic and cruel failure of the State in respect of our vulnerable young people that goes back to the Tuam babies, the Magdalen laundries and the industrial schools. These people were from working class and poor backgrounds and in those institutions they were degraded, abused, tortured and killed. Should those people not have a legal right of recourse to protect them and a right of recourse against the State if it fails to vindicate those rights and, in particular, fails to protect children and to provide the basic right of putting a roof over one's head?

How can the Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael parties, or the Labour Party which it would seem is sitting on the fence, state that a Parliament needs discretion not to give those rights? That is what they are saying in a very sophisticated way, like the Sophists. There is no reason for any civilised society not to give those legal and enforceable rights to its citizens.

See this speech in context