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

It is rare that I comment on other contributor's words in this House but I cannot let one of the sentences that was uttered a moment ago go. I will not go out at the beginning of March to blow off steam in a ballot box. I will go out to think about all of those families that somehow were considered less in our Constitution and less in law because of that. It is about the likes of Johnny O'Meara, whose case is due on Monday, and the single parents out there who were less in the eyes of the State. It is not to blow off steam.

That said, I ask myself a question with my special Oireachtas committee hat on my head. In that committee we purposely sat down and came up with the title for the report: "Unfinished Democracy: Achieving Gender Equality". I wonder if that will still be the case after this referendum has been put to the people, and I sadly suspect that it will be. I want to ask the Minister - and I asked this question on Second Stage - why the Government moved so far from the citizen's assembly recommendations, despite that process beginning as far back as 2018 and being representative of the all-party Oireachtas Joint Committee on Gender Equality? I want to draw the Minister's memory back just over a year since that committee reported. The committee was so committed to doing justice to the citizen's assembly and the recommendations it had made and to bringing it one step forward and bringing it to Government as something that should be considered for implementation. So committed were we that we came back to the Houses of the Oireachtas and sought an extension. We did not just want to draw the line under something because a clock told us we had to do so. We wanted to ensure we had got it as right as we could, as a cross-party group of people.

Sinn Féin is not the only group that is concerned by some of the language in the proposed amendment, and it is not even just those of us in this House who are concerned. A lot of the stakeholders to whom I have spoken since this process began have concerns, that to their minds and to my mind, have yet to be fully addressed. This is so important. The expansion of the definition of a "family", as proposed, is hugely significant and important. The fact that it is so important and significant means it has to be gotten right. When we extend these constitutional protections to the single parents and cohabiting couples that have been in long-term relationships and to their children, it must be done in a way that is open and transparent.

This expansion of constitutional protections to families founded on durable relationships raises questions on what that means in practical terms. What are the implications in law and policy, be that social protection, taxation, education, succession or family law? The list goes on. It cannot be credibly suggested that a major amendment such as this to the constitutional definition of a "family" has no foreseeable consequences in existing law and policy. It has, and we want it to have consequences in existing law and policy. We want them to change also but what are they, how will they change and when will those changes take place? It is vital for that rationale that the wording, scope, meaning and expected changes in law and policy are identified to the greatest degree possible at this point and at this stage. In the absence of that information there is a significant risk of confusion among voters on the implications of the proposed changes. It heightens the risk of misinformation around the proposal, a risk that the Government has recognised.

Now is the point where Government should outline the research that has been carried out on the implications of the amendment for existing legislation. What were the findings and recommendations of the interdepartmental committee that was founded to prepare for the referendum? Will the Government publish any research conducted by that committee and by the Office of the Attorney General so that others can see the proposed amendments and the impact on legislation? The State needs to commit to expanding social welfare reforms to, at the least, families under a different definition from those that have been included to date. The Government also needs to consider the draft legislation and what it will look like. What is the Government's timeline for this? If six Bills will be required, when will they be prepared and when will they be brought before the Dáil? Amending the Constitution is one thing but delivering meaningful change does not just come from a referendum; it comes from the legislation that needs to come after. What does it look like and what is the Government's timeframe?

To use the term "durable relationships" is novel and the Government must admit that. My concern is around the term "durable". I have known deep and meaningful relationships that did not last as long as others may have. What is the threshold? Is it time, quality or quantity? Why were the words "interdependent" and "co-dependent" not chosen? They give a clearer definition that people can understand and that they have seen activated in other areas. On the face of it, it appears to provide that single-parent family with the constitutional protections that others have had, and that is welcome, but the language that has been chosen brings a risk to it that could easily have been avoided.

See this speech in context