Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour) | Oireachtas source

Deputy Bacik has spoken extensively on the two amendments before us. I do not wish to repeat many of those points. However, there are some points regarding process that I would like to place on the record. There was a citizens' assembly and the convening of a special committee which did Trojan work here in the Dáil and came up with a set of recommendations and we now fastforward to the legislation before us. There was a request last week by the Minister to waive pre-legislative scrutiny on this. The committee divided on that very issue because some of us felt there was a point of principle at play here and that, notwithstanding the timelines that the Minister said he was up against in regard to having this legislation promulgated, we felt strongly that a small amount of time could have been given to highlight some of the issues that are now arising in respect of the wording before us. This wording is now being questioned by the very stakeholders that the Minister is going to give time to in the coming days and weeks. The irony is that we set up structures here to examine legislation that is waived away in one fell swoop with a Government majority view, but the Minister can find plenty of time outside of these walls to engage with the very stakeholders we could have brought in, including the Minister, back to the committee to go through these issues. I strike a blow here for parliamentary procedure and good practice. Mr. Owen Reidy of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions issued a statement today to the effect that:

The failure to follow the advice of both the Citizens' Assembly on Gender Equality and the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Gender Equality to include both care within the home and wider community is a lost opportunity for the value of care in all its forms, the vast majority of which is provided by women, to be reflected in our Constitution.

That is one significant stakeholder representing the workers of this country that has reservations about this. A little bit more time and consideration might have avoided the Minister giving hostages to fortune on this. I suspect the Minister is giving hostages to fortune. The stakeholders are not bought in. Every successful referendum we have ever had in this country needed civil society behind it. They are not bought in. Another example is a document from Free Legal Aid Centres, FLAC, specifically in relation to care:

It is unlikely that the new Article 42B proposed will be interpreted as providing any new rights to parents of children with disabilities seeking supports for their child in terms of their care at home or in school, or for people with disabilities or older people seeking to live independent lives. The recognition of family care alone is not sufficient to strengthen the rights of carers and to ensure substantive improvements in law and policy i.e. measures which would improve the lives of carers. In fact, it could be seen as a constitutional endorsement of thestatus quowhere women predominantly bear the brunt of providing unpaid care and let the State ‘off the hook’. The experience of legal instruments which recognise care in other countries - without creating positive obligations on the State - supports this view. Those laws have been criticised for shifting the responsibility for long-term care onto unpaid carers.

That is the view of FLAC. Those are two stakeholders. In the case of the NWCI, the jury is still out. The Minister stated that he met one stakeholder. It may have been the NWCI. For the purposes of transparency in the context of promulgating this legislation, it would be good if the Minister told us who he has met.

I was struck by the words of the Minister of State, Deputy Carroll MacNeill. It was a wonderful intervention. I was grappling with the idea of durability. We now have eminent barristers who have expressed doubt here in respect of that wording. They must be taken seriously if the Legislature is to be taken seriously in terms of the interventions it makes in the context of this referendum. I am conscious not to misinterpret her remarks. She will be back in the Chamber later on. She stated there is more work to be done regarding what constitutes an enduring or durable relationship. Her status as a barrister is well known and her words matter. She is a Minister of State. We must seriously consider her view that there needs to be further discussion on this. I will put a health warning on what I am saying. My interpretation of what she said is that there needs to be further consideration of what that concept entails. I do not wish to put a wedge between the senior Minister and the Minister of State-----

See this speech in context