Paul McAuliffe (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

Like the other Deputies who served on the committee, we should acknowledge that, with the date now set and the legislation before us, we have a historic opportunity to recognise those families who do not fit within the tight constitutional framework that the current version of the Constitution permits. That is important because, no matter how we get there, the House is united in ensuring that with regard to families who do not fit within the tight definition, the change will finally be made to our Constitution and those families will be recognised. My father has a great phrase: "Life is not a tidy place." There are so many different versions. Even quantifying how many people in my constituency might be impacted by this legislation is difficult. I was looking at some of the Library and Research Service's statistics. Of the 14,000 families in my constituency with children, almost 6,000 are regarded as one-parent families, but they may already be protected by the current Constitution because they may be based on a marital relationship that has been subject to separation. Even trying to quantify the multiple types of families and the different shades of families that exist is very difficult, and that is because of the complexity of this issue. I say this based on my experience of the marriage equality referendum. We fought very hard to extend marriage equality because we believed marriage meant something and that it was an institution that more people should have access to. I would hate to see red herrings in this referendum that would seek to say we are undermining the institution of marriage or the idea that marriage entails a positive decision by two people to come together. Referendums are often won and lost on the basis of red herrings.

As a member of the committee, I echo what was said by other members. We deliberately suggested wording that would in no way dilute the rights of the family. It was a conscious decision that we made. I am not opposed to the wording. These are just two different routes to the same place. In addressing the amendment put forward by the Labour group, I would like the Minister to try to answer some of the queries we will get on the doorsteps. We have heard some of them here. I object to the idea that recognising thousands of families in our Constitution for the first time is somehow blowing off steam. That comes from a position of huge privilege that entails not understanding that everybody does not fit the same mould. It is important, however, that the Minister answer some of the questions on the issues around immigration, diluting the rights of families and the idea that this will lead to the Government having to introduce legislation in certain areas. In doing what he has done by adding the phrase "durable relationships", he might actually be providing greater protection than the Oireachtas committee was willing to provide, but I ask him to equip us with the advice he has been given on why the decision was taken to go down the route in question. What are the definitions of durable relationships the Minister has discussed with the Attorney General and the Cabinet?

See this speech in context