Roderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

Yes, absolutely. I could not have put it better myself. That quality exists in cohabitees' and child-parent relationships.

Deputy McAuliffe raised the issue of the impact on immigration law. It is an important point to raise as I have seen it feature in the debate. The clear legal advice we received from the Attorney General is that there will be no legal impact on immigration law or, in particular, international protection law. It is likely the change will be cited in cases. It will probably be referenced. People will raise it in courts and ultimately courts will make a final determination. It is important to say, however, that there is a vast amount of legislation that sets out the rights of people who seek to come to Ireland, be it migration for international protection or through family reunification, work visas, etc. The State is given significant latitude in the decisions it takes in that area, as migration is seen as being very much a public policy issue, where the State needs to be able to exercise its discretion. We know already that the courts have allowed the State to make legislation that impacts on existing Article 41 and family law rights because it is regarded as an area where the State has discretion owing to its importance. The interests of public policy and the common good in maintaining the integrity of the immigration system have always been regarded as very weighty and, as I said, they already justify interference with family rights under Article 41.

Finally, on the specific tangible benefits that recognition as a constitutional family will give, from a legal perspective, being recognised as a constitutional family is a shield against Government interference. It places a limit on the State interfering in the establishment of a family - there is a strong limitation regarding the constitution of the family - and in the internal workings of a family or in its authority. When a family is recognised as a constitutional family, the State does not interfere with the internal workings of home or life decisions, including such issues as the religious belief a family adheres to or how and where a child receives education. Those are the core protections that being part of a constitutional family creates.

Once this referendum is passed, there will undoubtedly be a need to address other legislative issues. I am clear that this referendum is not a panacea for the challenges that cohabitees and especially one-parent families and different families face. No one on the Government side is claiming that and I do not think the citizens' assembly ever claimed that either. The citizens' assembly set out a range of other actions that need to be taken, many of which are being advanced with others in need of further work. If Deputies want me to share it, I have a list of what my Department has been able to advance in childcare, types of leave and work done with the Department of Justice on the establishment of Cuan, the domestic, sexual and gender based violence, DSGBV, agency. These are all things that were set out by the citizens' assembly.

I do want to be drawn on the O'Meara case as I think we will see a judgment soon and the Government will have to look closely at the outcome of that decision.

See this speech in context