Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

It is true to say that if this amendment is passed by the Irish people, it will have more historic and symbolic significance than legal significance. This is not a reason to say we should not have the amendment and it is not a reason to categorise it as meaningless as some individuals in the House have done. It is, however, a recognition that there are certain parts of our Constitution that are outdated and anachronistic and need to be updated.

I am one of the strongest defenders of the Irish Constitution. It is a document that has served the people of Ireland extremely well since it was introduced at the beginning of 1938. What is surprising is that there are not more provisions in it that are outdated or anachronistic. The reason why there are not is because of the foresight and diligence of the drafters of the Constitution, who recognised that they wanted a constitution that was dynamic and could respond to different periods of our history and the future and would establish institutions that would withstand the passage of time. To a large extent, they achieved that aim.

However, it is obviously the case that certain language within the Constitution is outdated and Article 41.2 is one of those provisions. This is why I predominantly support its amendment and removal from the Constitution. A distinguished legal academic has referred to that provision in the Constitution as being objectionably paternalistic, which is a very good description of it. The reason I and many people think it is so is because it refers to a woman by her life within the home. It suggests that a woman's life begins and ends within the home. Nobody is suggesting that people in this House or the country do not respect and recognise the extraordinary hard work that women and men do in the home and the value this provides to the State but the language that is used is outdated. When you look at the section on it, it suggests that by neglecting her duties in the home, a woman may in some respects be doing the State a disservice. Again, it is suggestive that fathers do not have any duties in the home so both provisions we are seeking to remove from the Constitution are outdated, sexist and anachronistic and notwithstanding the foresight and competence of the people who drafted the Constitution, they are provisions we should now remove.

I welcome the fact that when the Minister commenced his speech today, he referred to the fact that back in 1937 and 1938, there was significant objection to this provision by women's groups in Ireland. It is not as though at the time, everyone was happy to go along with this provision. We need to go back and look further, and it probably requires an even more detailed debate, to consider what happened to the great dream women in Ireland had during the revolutionary era and how that fell apart when the Free State was established from 1922 and 1923 onwards. When you look at the Proclamation of Independence, it starts with what was a revolutionary exhortation in 1916 that referred to Irish men and Irish women. It also repeatedly referred to the fact that the people should be able to elect their representatives and expressly refers to suffrage of all Irish men and all Irish women.

Many people elected to the first Dáil and the second Dáil went on to achieve great political careers. Others went on to achieve legendary status because they died subsequently. However, it is important to remember that there were groups within the first Dáil and the second Dáil that to a large extent have been forgotten about and airbrushed from history. I regret to say that a significant group that has been forgotten about consists of the women who were elected to the first Dáil and the second Dáil. I know there is a lot of recognition of - and we all remember - Constance Markievicz but how many of us remember the extraordinary role played by people like Kathleen Clarke, Kathleen O'Callaghan, Margaret Pearse, Ada English or Mary MacSwiney to name a few? They were all remarkable women. Many of them were elected because they had associations with male figures from their family but they also had a very strong revolutionary view at the time about how Irish women wanted this revolution not simply to shake off the yoke of British imperialism but also to establish equality and freedom for women. That is what they aspired to see. Unfortunately, the Civil War had a very negative impact on their reputations. All of them were very close to Éamon de Valera, all of them opposed the Treaty and all of them were virulently attacked after the Civil War as being women who sought to inspire men to get involved in violence. A shocking calumny was cast on the character of these very fine women.

Once the Free State was set up, we had the laws such as the Civil Service Regulation Act, which prevented women from working in the Civil Service after they got married, and the Censorship of Publications Act 1929, which prevented women from getting information about contraception so women's rights regressed before the Constitution was introduced. What was surprising and disappointing to all those women was that they were extremely close to Éamon de Valera and Fianna Fáil.

Other women, such as Dorothy Macardle, canvassed Éamon de Valera as well to say he should not include this provision within the Constitution but, notwithstanding that, the provision was included. Let us remember what happened historically, not just the women who were elected here but the reason for the inclusion of this provision within our Constitution.

I know many people are concerned about the fact we are not putting into the Constitution a provision that gives a legal right. All I can say in response to that, and maybe it is not an adequate response, is that the provision we are removing did not create a legal right. In many respects, Article 45, the directive principles of social policy, may be the appropriate place within the Constitution for aspirational provisions. There are many passages throughout the Constitution where the word "endeavour" is used as opposed to the word "strive". On balance, I am very pleased that this historic amendment has been put forward.

See this speech in context