Holly Cairns (Cork South West, Social Democrats) | Oireachtas source

The Constitution's current definition of a family is a relic of the past. Many who do not know about it would be so shocked to hear it is included. It does not reflect the reality of society today, nor does it recognise or protect a huge proportion of families. The Constitution is the fundamental legal document of our State and it is a living document. As the principles of the Constitution guide our society, our society must also guide our Constitution. Marriage does not make a family; it is the relationships, actions, love and care between people that form a family.

This referendum has been a long time coming. In 1996, the Constitution Review Group recommended that the definition of the family be reformed to remove the link with marriage. Article 41 had never represented all families in the State. Certainly over recent decades, the gap between the constitutional definition and reality has grown wider and wider. There are hundreds of thousands of Irish people in committed relationships with and without children who would be surprised to learn they are not recognised as a family simply because they are not married.

All of these families are currently excluded from the protection of Article 41 of the Constitution, mine included. The current wording should never have made its way into the Constitution in the first place. It is high time that it was changed. We all know that the definition has to change, but, as with all referendums to the Constitution, the wording must be well considered and, crucially, absolutely clear in its meaning.

I was disappointed to see that this Bill and the Bill on care will not be subject to pre-legislative scrutiny. Pre-legislative scrutiny was introduced for a reason. It is an essential step in our legislative process for teasing out issues at an early stage. The Government can set out its rationale and the relevant committee can make recommendations to strengthen a Bill before it reaches Second Stage. Instead, we are debating an amendment to our Constitution – the first of two such debates today – and we do not know the Government's rationale for choosing the wording it has presented to us. We have no certainty on the legal ramifications of the wording. To make matters worse, the Government initially wanted to limit the Second Stage debate before this was opposed at the Business Committee. That is not good enough.

This is a chance to change the Constitution. The Bill may be short but, arguably, it would have a more lasting impact on the State than many of the Bills we pass in this House. It requires serious scrutiny as a result.

I ask the Minister to commit today to ensuring that Committee Stage will be taken by the sectoral committee, with as much time as is needed, and that Report Stage will not be guillotined. The report of the Joint Committee on Gender Equality presented several options for the wording of the amendment, as did the citizens' assembly. All attempted in various ways to expand the definition of the family to include those not previously represented, including lone parents, unmarried parents and unmarried couples. Can the Minister outline why he has landed on the wording of this Bill and why the suggestions presented by the citizens' assembly were refused?

The explanatory memorandum provided to us gives absolutely no detail on the rationale for the wording chosen, or the intended implications of the changes to the law on the policy going forward. We cannot do our jobs in this House without that information. Certainly, we cannot be expected to make amendments on Committee Stage without clarity on what the wording is trying to achieve.

The expansion of the constitutional definition of a family to include those founded on other durable relationships seems to cover most who were previously offered no protection under the Constitution. However, to be certain, can the Minister confirm on the record that the definition of family proposed to be inserted into the Constitution and the term "durable relationships" is being interpreted as including lone parents and single-parent families? What exactly is being defined as a durable relationship under the law? For example, at what point does a couple in a relationship come under the protection of Article 41? What are the implications for the application of taxation policy, social welfare payments, joint income assessments, succession, family law and mortgages, to name just a few areas?

I also ask the Minister to explain how this ties in with the review of equality legislation being undertaken by his Department. Of course, the courts will ultimately decide on their interpretation of the wording and its implications but it is essential that the Government identifies and communicates any changes to law and policy that are expected to come out of this change so that we can better scrutinise this legislation and so that voters know exactly what they will be voting on next March. Usually we would have that information by now when debating legislation. I would like to receive that detail as soon as possible.

If people are confused about what they are voting on, the Government runs a real risk of low turnout and a small vote margin as was the case with the referendum on children's rights. That referendum did ultimately pass but was damaged by an almost complete lack of legislative scrutiny and debate. Unfortunately, since then we have not seen the progress on children's rights that we would have hoped for. Ultimately, we all want this amendment to result in every family in Ireland in every shape and size being represented and protected by its Constitution. We want the practical implications of this amendment to be as clear as possible to voters ahead of the referendum debate.

See this speech in context