Ivana Bacik (Dublin Bay South, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I move:

That Dáil Éireann shall take note of the Report of the Joint Committee on Gender Equality entitled "Unfinished Democracy: Achieving Gender Equality", copies of which were laid before Dáil Éireann on 15th December, 2022.

I am grateful for the opportunity to move the motion and speak today on this important report. I am honoured to be addressing the House as Chairperson of the Oireachtas Committee on Gender Equality, which produced our report entitled Unfinished Democracy: Achieving Gender Equality, copies of which were laid before the Dáil on 14 December 2022, more than a year ago now. At the outset, I reiterate my thanks to the other members of the committee who worked so hard in a relatively short and truncated timeframe of nine months on producing what I think is a really comprehensive, thoughtful and considered report. I also thank the secretariat, who did such great work in producing the report under tight time constraints. I also thank those involved in the Citizens’ Assembly on Gender Equality, on whose works we were reliant. In particular, I am grateful to Catherine Day, who chaired the citizens' assembly and to the members of the citizens' assembly, many of whom engaged with us in the course of our deliberations. I also thank all those who appeared as witnesses before our committee and whose insights, lived experience, knowledge and expertise enabled us to produce our report. If I may, I thank a group of transition year students who are working in my office this week and who did some research for me for this speech: Juliette, Ned, Katie, Louie, Pau and Jean. I also thank Chloe Manahan, my political adviser, who has done a lot of work on this as well.

I was very struck by some of the observations made by the transition year students, who came to this report fresh and gave me some thoughtful insights into the views of 16-year-olds on gender equality. As one of the students put it to me, throughout history, women have constantly been the other, left to care for children, to clean, to cook and essentially to serve men, and this from a young man. Another, speaking about the referendum, which we will be addressing extensively as it arises from some of the recommendations of the citizens' assembly and the committee, pointed out that the referendum vote represents a "crucial step forward of many in a slow stumble uphill in the pursuit of gender equality in Ireland". I thought that sums up progress: slow and stumbling in many ways in our pursuit of gender equality in Ireland.

Our committee was very mindful of the slowness and stumbling steps in that title that we used, "unfinished democracy." It came from comments made by witnesses in a reporting process I had been involved in many years previously when I was first a Senator, in 2009. We produced a report on women's participation in politics and it was said to us that until Ireland has equal representation of women and men in the Dáil and Seanad, we are an unfinished democracy. It is a very strong phrase and something that came out really strongly from the citizens' assembly report as well as from our own work.

When we were starting our deliberations as a committee, we took the view that the 45 recommendations of the assembly amount to a blueprint for achievement of gender equality. They are so careful and considered and cover such a broad range of crucial issues. We looked at how best we could ensure implementation of those 45 recommendations. Our report is 144 pages long.

We attempted to present, the Minister in particular, and the Government as a whole with an action plan for how to implement those 45 recommendations. They span a broad range of issues, as I said. A large portion of them focus on care and social protection. As we have said in the past, it was no coincidence that this was the case because the assembly made its deliberations and carried out its work in the context of the Covid-19 epidemic and we were all increasingly made aware of the importance of care in society during that pandemic. Another issue that comes through clearly from the citizens' assembly is the gendered nature of care in society and the fact that a vast preponderance of both paid and unpaid care work is carried out by women. The gendered aspect was central to the deliberations of both the committee and the assembly.

There were also important recommendations on education; political participation and leadership in public life, violence against women and gender-based violence, and constitutional change. I am conscious that in the time available I cannot do justice to all those recommendation so I will focus on four key issues. I will have an opportunity to reply to the debate. The first of the four issues is constitutional change, which is the subject of the first three recommendations in our report and in that of the citizens' assembly that relate to changing Article 41 of the Constitution. This is topical as we are eight days away from the referendums that will take place on International Women's Day next week. Second is the issue of the care recommendations and the need to construct a real welfare state and a really strong framework for care if we are to achieve true gender equality. Third, and I may have to come back to this in a later contribution,is the issue of gender-based violence and the need for a more compassionate justice system, which is a need that emerges from our recommendations. Finally, I will look at the gendered nature of work and the continued feminist struggle for workplace equality.

The first three recommendations in our report, which mirror the first three in the citizens' assembly report, relate to constitutional change. We called for referendums to be put to the people in 2023. That was a unanimous call made by our committee. We were disappointed by the delay in securing the implementation of those recommendations, especially the one on time. However, we were glad to see the Government finally move to hold the vote. That view was shared across the committee and it was certainly the view of the Labour Party. During our deliberations, we were very careful to devise and propose a precise wording to give effect to each of the citizens' assembly recommendations. In following the citizens' assembly, we sought to do three things through constitutional referendum. The first did not relate to Article 41, but rather we would have amended Article 40.1 to insert express protection for gender equality into the equality guarantee of the Constitution. The assembly asked us to do that and to insert principles of non-discrimination more generally to reflect current human rights law and standards.

The Government took a decision not to proceed with the referendum on the equality guarantee at all. I want to put on record again my disappointment and that of the Labour Party about the decision that Article 40.1 would not be the subject of constitutional change. We carefully devised wording to give effect to the citizens assembly's recommendations. I see the Minister expressing some doubt. I acknowledge, as did all members of the committee, that this was a complex exercise and that it would be difficult to find a wording to amend the equality guarantee in such a way that would not create all kinds of other consequences. However, we proposed a wording and had hoped for more engagement on that.

Leaving that aside, the other two aims of our recommendations and those of the citizens assembly focused on Article 41. We wanted to delete the sexist and outdated language about women and mothers in the article, replace it with gender-neutral recognition of care and insert a more inclusive definition of "family" not limited to that based on marriage. We absolutely acknowledge that is what the Government is now moving on. The wording proposed by the Government to amend Article 41 seeks to delete the sexist and outdated language in Article 41.2, to replace it with a gender neutral recognition of care and to change the definition of the "family" to make it more inclusive. The Labour Party is, therefore, calling for a yes-yes vote, but I previously described our position on the referendums as being “yes-yes, and” because we were disappointed that the language proposed by the Government did not reflect precisely the wording and aims of the citizens assembly and of our committee. I will come to it in a little more detail, but we had hoped to see a more inclusive definition of "care" that would have covered care both within and outside the home and family and also put a stronger obligation on the State to recognise and protect care.

The "yes-yes, and" position is valid because the Constitution is about more than words. Its text can be used to bring about real change. It can be an advocacy tool and a basis for legal action. We in the Labour Party have a strong vision for a genuinely radical model of care, with a welfare state that supports its citizens and residents from cradle to grave. We acknowledge that the new constitutional recognition of care - even the more limited definition proposed by the Government - will represent a base from which to develop that vision, just as the new more inclusive definition of "family" can help to build protections against child poverty and homelessness. Just as important as getting the wording right and making the change will be achieving an impact for the better upon people’s lives. To subvert the suffragette slogan, we need deeds and words. We need to see real action on the change of the words, if the people vote yes-yes next week and the change is made next week.

I will speak briefly about the proposed change in the thirty-ninth amendment on the family. We recognise that the change is long overdue. The constitutional recognition of the family as only being based on marriage is highly restrictive and does not reflect the wonderful diversity of family life in Ireland today. In the debates on the legislation, some humorous and fanciful red herrings were raised. In this House and in the Seanad, we helpfully parsed and discussed the wording and that helped to achieve some clarity. There will be an immense positive impact of voting yes to a more inclusive recognition of the family, especially for the more than 15,000 cohabiting couples and their children - until recently, my family was one of those families - and for many other families, such as single-parent families, families where grandparents are carers and so on. It will have an important and positive impact on families like the family of John O'Meara, the father of three children from County Tipperary. We have spoken about his case previously, which clearly shows the need for the family referendum to be passed.

On the care referendum, we acknowledge the need to delete the sexist language on women having lives in the home and mothers having duties in the home. Our committee recommended a more inclusive wording on care to recognise care within and outside the home and family and we would also have inserted an obligation on the State to take reasonable measures to support care. By contrast, the Government's wording covers family care only, that is care inside family settings, and makes a somewhat diluted commitment to strive to support such care. It has been notable to see in recent weeks that some organisations from whom we heard at the committee, such as the Independent Living Movement Ireland, Disabled Women Ireland and Disability Federation Ireland expressed concerns about the wording on care. It is important that those of us who are calling for a yes vote be clear that we recognise the concerns that have been expressed, especially by disability rights groups, but we still assert that a yes vote is progress. It is not as much progress as many of us across the Opposition would like to see, but it is progress. It is a step forward. Perhaps the best way to put it is that we should not let perfection trump progress. Ultimately, in a referendum we have to make a binary choice between yes and no. We cannot vote against an amendment that deletes sexist and outdated language and for the first time recognises care in a gender-neutral sense. There is currently no recognition of care in the Constitution at all so it is important that the referendum passes. However, it is also important that we use that passage - and I hope it will be a yes vote - to ensure strong supports are introduced for carers and for those who receive care.

What we need to do is ensure the words are followed up by deeds by the Government. The recommendations of the citizens' assembly and our committee on care really do require implementation and would give effect to the purpose behind the care referendum. We need to see recommendations like the expansion of disability services to include in-home supports to ensure increased respite provision does not lead to the institutionalisation of those who receive care. We need to see specific access to personal needs assistants to vindicate disabled people's rights to travel and autonomy. We need to see supports and resources for independent living for disabled and older persons who may need support. We need to see a statutory right to home care and an intersectional understanding of disability in our delivery of State care. Initiatives like these and commitments from the Government on measures to support care will drive support for a "Yes" vote on care. We need to see the "and" included in the debate. While people are becoming increasingly critical of the wording of the 40th amendment, we must not lose sight of the fact that it will represent progress and a step forward. Crucially, it represents a starting point in the slow stumble towards equality – not just gender equality but equality for all. On that basis, we are calling for two "Yes" votes.

I hope to return to the other aspects of our report in a later contribution.

See this speech in context