Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank everyone who contributed on Second Stage of my Private Members' Bill, the Thirty-Seventh Amendment of the Constitution (Economic, Social and Cultural Rights) Bill 2018. As mentioned, this is my third attempt to have this Bill passed by various Dáileanna. I thank all the parties and groups that put forward speakers to debate the Bill and I thank them for their support in this regard. I will deal later with the Government's response to the Bill. I thank my former parliamentary assistant, Councillor Jodie Neary, now of the Social Democrats, who worked diligently on this Bill over previous years. I thank my current staff, particularly Ms Ber Grogan, for the work they have done on my contributions today. I also thank those in my office who have been trying to raise awareness of this important Bill recently. I hope there will be an Uplift petition so the public can get behind an ESC rights campaign in the lead-up to the vote on my Bill. I also hope that the Bill will at least be considered in Government ranks.

There has been so much awful news over the past year, and so much loss, grief, heartache and change, that this initiative would be a wonderfully positive one to introduce. I am not saying the referendum will have to be this year but it should be discussed on Committee Stage and held alongside a referendum on a right to housing in 2022.

During this pandemic, we have seen the importance of, and the strength in, union representation. Some of the industries and services with functioning unions and significant union membership were able to influence the course of action of the Government. Others on the front line, working in some of our supermarkets, may be paid above the minimum wage but they are not allowed to organise. Debenhams workers have been treated atrociously by the Government despite being unionised. This is why the right to organise and join a union of one's choice needs to be a constitutional right.

I want to mention the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. In 2011, much fanfare was made of the Government's decision to sign the optional protocol. Much like the Optional Protocol to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, UNCRPD, the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights would provide for a complaints procedure for individuals who believe their economic, social and cultural rights have been violated. The Government press release of 5 March 2011 stated the complaints mechanism "is in keeping with the spirit of the many independent complaints, monitoring and inspection bodies that are currently in place in Ireland." The Government stated: "In signing this Optional Protocol, we continue to affirm our determination to achieve full respect for human rights in practice." I despair; I really do. In the case of the UNCRPD, much was made of ratification, but it was decided not to implement the optional protocol because, God forbid, the Government would be held accountable for the promises it made. In the case of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the relevant Government had a photo opportunity and fanfare in New York, but the small print was that "Ratification of the Optional Protocol is a separate step and will be considered in due course." Signing the optional protocol means nothing without ratification. When will this be ratified?

Ireland last undertook a periodic review with the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in June 2015. On the website of the Department of Foreign Affairs, there is a list of written responses to questions from that committee "which were unanswered due to time constraints during the third periodic review of Ireland, Geneva, 8–9 June, 2015". A quick scan of the contents page of that submission shows that we have much work to do. Chapters cover access to rural broadband; collective complaint to the European Committee of Social Rights; Magdalen laundries; the national women's strategy; employment legislation; the national minimum wage; exempted categories of employees under the national minimum wage; comparisons between the national minimum wage and the cost of living; zero-hour contracts and temporary and informal contracts; the provision of childcare; corporal punishment of children; positive parenting; the right to education; the intercultural education strategy; Traveller education; diversity of patronage; the admissions Bill; social welfare — decision-making and appeals, including legal representation at appeals; the habitual residence condition and victims of domestic violence; youth unemployment and the Youth Guarantee; poverty trends; mortgage arrears; and child and adolescent mental health services. These all have to be addressed.

In their responses today, both Ministers said there is no real need to proceed as I propose because we are already doing so in Ireland. That is telling. It was stated that the matter of the consideration of economic and social rights was referred to the housing committee but it has not been debated in the past four years. That shows how much the Government prioritises the matter.

The Minister said the Government has already considered the matter fully. The Government responds to the UN committee regularly so there is already full consideration within all Departments. The Departments have to compile the answers as to why they are not complying. Obviously, they are considering the matter and know what it is all about. The Government's response is damning, therefore.

The Minister said the Government considered the question of failures of the Constitution. Maybe that needs to be addressed. Reference was made to how the Constitution already provides for what I propose and it was stated there is a reason the Government did not act on it. However, the Minister's colleague stated the last time this matter was debated that the Government looked to Article 45 of the Constitution because there were objections from businesses regarding inclusion in Article 44. Maybe that shows that our Constitution, as it stands, needs to be examined. If everything is so right and everything the Government has done is so in line with economic, social and cultural rights, why has it a problem with adopting the measure? The Ministers have outlined a whole list of measures that are commendable and work well, yet the Government will not accept that people have a right to have the rights in the Constitution. That is telling in itself.

In 2017, the Minister for Justice, Deputy McEntee, who was then a Minister of State in the Department of Health, said "the potential impacts of the Bill are immense and require very careful and informed consideration." That was disingenuous then and it is disingenuous now. Why would the Government have signed the optional protocol in 2012 and why would it have ratified the international convention at all if it was such hassle? The then Minister of State at the Department of Health also said: "As elected representatives, we remain answerable to the people." It is a people's Constitution. Let them have their say. We are answerable to them and they should be given the opportunity to vote on this issue in a referendum. That is the most important thing.

The enshrining of economic, social and cultural rights in our Constitution is something to hope for and to mobilise around, and its possibility allows us to show residents of Ireland that we will have a "new normal", a better normal. We can do it. There just is not the political will to look after our most vulnerable, or there has not been to date. This is an opportunity for members of the Cabinet to vote again to show how they can actually do in government what they did when in the Opposition benches. It is not going to happen, unfortunately. What we need is a change - a complete change.

See this speech in context