Sorca Clarke (Longford-Westmeath, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister. I did not intend to make reference to his opening statement when I came in today. As somebody who was raised in a single-parent household, however, I feel compelled to do so. We need to congratulate, acknowledge and celebrate those women, the grannies - and in my case soon-to-be great-granny - for the work they have done in building those stable homes and nurturing their children, some of whom still benefit from such nurturing. I acknowledge and thank all of those who gave so freely of their time to engage with the Citizens' Assembly on Gender Equality and the subsequent Special Oireachtas Committee on Gender Equality. Their time, dedication and work are appreciated and acknowledged deeply for bringing us to this point. These are important referendums. Sinn Féin wants to see them pass and will continue to engage with stakeholders over the Christmas period with a view to bringing forward potential amendments in the new year.

There are, however, pertinent questions to be asked and answered. Why has the Government moved so far from the recommendations of the citizens' assembly and the Joint Committee on Gender Equality? I am concerned by some of the language proposed in the amendment. As the Minister stated, words matter. My concerns include the reference to "durable relationships". Why was that language chosen? It is language identified in a Bill briefing prepared by the Oireachtas Library and Research Service as a legal concept found in European law but not previously recommended by the Citizens' Assembly or the committee. The word "durable" is peculiarly odd and vague in a constitution. Why were the words "interdependent" or "codependent" not chosen? The language that has been chosen risks being unnecessarily vague and open to very different interpretations. We need assurances that this language will not cause legal issues or loopholes. Ambiguity is not much use. We should have clear and defined wording. I ask the Minister to consider this language carefully and thoroughly to ensure we get this right. This can be resolved by the Government if it is listens to the well-founded concerns of the Opposition and stakeholders.

For example, a scenario put to me is that of three lifelong friends who have lived together for many years, rent a property together, share expenses and responsibilities and support each other through all of life's challenges. These individuals are not romantically involved but their bond is strong, resembling that of a family in many respects. None of them have immediate blood relatives and they have come to rely on each other through the years for emotional support in practical matters, such as healthcare decisions. Will the reference in the proposed amendment to a durable relationship mean these friends will potentially be considered a family unit under law? If so, does this raise questions in respect of healthcare rights, property and inheritance rights and assets?

See this speech in context