Jennifer Carroll MacNeill (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Tairgim: “Go léifear an Bille an Dara hUair anois."

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

I thank my colleagues across this House for their participation today and for their expressions of support for this Private Member’s Bill. I also thank the Minister of State, Deputy Chambers, for being here this afternoon. I appreciate the encouragement and support of the National Women's Council of Ireland and Women for Election, which are supportive of this legislation.

The current Article 15.11.1 of the Constitution reads: “All questions in each House shall, save as otherwise provided by this Constitution, be determined by a majority of the votes of the members present and voting other then the Chairman or presiding member." In the Bill before us, a new proposed Article 15.11.4 is created in the following way, having deleted that section:

Each House may make its own rules and standing orders providing for special and limited circumstances by which members not present in that House may vote when any matter, or any class of matter as so provided for, is to be determined by a vote of that House.

This constitutional amendment would remove the requirement to be present for every vote and would enable each House of the Oireachtas to include in its Standing Orders a mechanism by means of which Members could vote remotely or by proxy, in limited and specified circumstances to be determined by the Houses. Moving this provision from the Constitution to the rules of these Houses has the advantage of being flexible over time, allowing the Houses to make periodic changes to those rules over the decades to come in order to account for evolving situations that we may not be able to foresee today.

There are situations that we can and do foresee, however, and which we have experienced. There are at least three foreseeable situations in which a Member of the Houses should be permitted to vote remotely or by proxy. First and most obvious is in a public emergency, such as the experience we have just emerged from, one like we had never seen before. It was an emergency in which shared physical presence became the antithesis of public service. The second circumstance is illness or someone being immunocompromised, where a Member must take physical time away from their parliamentary duties for certain and specific reasons. For example, a Member may find themselves immunosuppressed or deeply unwell for a period of time. Either through that long-term illness or the medical treatment for that illness, the Member may lose their ability to participate in parliamentary votes. This would be due to no wish of their own, but only through a historical failure to have made inclusive provision for them. There have been some examples of this happening over time, including among our colleagues in the Thirty-third Dáil.

It is not for me to name them or to name any experience, but I am sure other Members will be aware of the natural life issues that face everyone in the working environment in here just as much as outside Leinster House.

It is also important to say that this provision may enable a broader representation in these Houses from persons with seen and unseen disabilities, who may otherwise be perfectly able to participate in our national Parliament but who may need the additional supports that this provision may provide them from time to time. The ability to participate differently is a proportionate and appropriate measure for us to be able to provide those who need to live life differently or with additional supports, and we have not as a House done enough to be as inclusive as I believe we can be.

The third foreseeable situation is, of course, maternity and paternity leave. People have babies. It should not be a surprise but yet our working structures take no account of it in this House. It automatically shuts off women of this land that we have not even considered them as equal natural participants in these Houses by providing for the most natural of life's events.

This was particularly relevant at the time of the introduction of this Bill in this House on 8 December 2020, when my Fine Gael colleague, the Minister for Justice, Deputy McEntee, had announced her pregnancy only three days before. As the first woman sitting at Cabinet level in Ireland to take maternity leave, although it was facilitated in terms of her ministerial brief, essentially, a sticky plaster was used in terms of the Minister's attendance for voting in the Dáil, in terms of her concurrent parliamentary duties.

I have seen comment from those who may feel that this is a self-serving Bill and that it is politicians looking after themselves in some way. From my own perspective, I know in my own heart at this stage that I will not need to avail of the maternity leave provision at this point in my career. I certainly hope not to need sick leave or to ever see another public emergency in that way but we do not legislate for ourselves. We legislate for those who come next and for the broader societal issues more generally. The lack of an equivalent to maternity or paternity leave for representatives of the people is an impediment to a family-friendly and gender-sensitive working environment for Members and for the community of the Houses of the Oireachtas who see us and, indeed, visit here and participate with us here in committees and civic society participation more broadly.

That issue was considered in great detail by the Forum on a Family Friendly and Inclusive Parliament chaired by former Deputy Mary Upton, the report of which was presented to the Ceann Comhairle in November 2021. I acknowledge the work of my parliamentary colleagues, Deputies Richmond and Cairns, Senator Fiona O’Loughlin, who is Chair of the Women’s Caucus, and Senators Chambers and Warfield who worked on this and, of course, the Ceann Comhairle, who established the forum in the first instance. The forum states that maternity leave is a more obvious issue now that more women are putting themselves forward for election and getting elected - a natural consequence of having introduced gender-incentive legislation. Of course, that proportion will go up even more. We should have done it before now but it is an absolute imperative.

There have been two Private Members' Bills that attempted to introduce leave, by Deputy Ó Fearghaíl, as the Ceann Comhairle then was in 2013, and by Deputies Niamh Smyth and Deputy Rabbitte, as the Minister of State was then, in 2018. From having spoken with some of the sponsors of those Bills, essentially they got stuck on the question of voting and the constitutional requirements in relation to that.

Importantly, the forum also acknowledged that, in 2021, there were two instances of pairing arrangements to cover two six-month periods of maternity leave for Members of these Houses. The forum noted that in both cases it was other female Members who offered to enter into that arrangement, which is great but has the effect of further reducing the number of women voting in Parliament. It was also noted by the forum that Members who had offered this arrangement had then faced criticism for failing to vote on certain occasions. Such dependence on informal or more formal pairing arrangements is an insufficient response at this stage in the evolution of Parliament in our democracy. It creates uncertainty generally. It creates uncertainty for the Member who is on leave. It has created problems for the Member who offered to help and it cannot be depended on in perpetuity in a modern parliament. I believe it is not a sophisticated enough response for a modern parliament and we need to take steps to address it, being, as we are, on notice of the problem and being committed to the expansion of female representation in the Chamber.

However, what heartened me most about the forum's report was its analysis of paternity leave and its acknowledgment that we must normalise such leave for men in this House, as we are trying to do in broader society. Childcare is not only a female issue. Childcare is a parents' issue. There are a number of male Members of these Houses who have had babies in their families in the lifetime of the Thirty-third Dáil and I often wondered throughout that whether it was honestly necessary for them to be in the convention centre or in this Chamber at 9 p.m., 10 p.m., 11 p.m., 12 a.m. and 1 a.m. each week as we voted on the business of that week, or whether, for the first few months of the baby’s life, everyone might have been a little better served, including the Members' constituents, had they had the opportunity and been facilitated to vote remotely and provide more support and company at home for a specified and limited period at such a tender stage of family life.

I want to also address the question of legal necessity in relation to this Bill because I am aware of and, indeed, greatly respect the views of constitutional academics who question whether this is necessary or whether it can be achieved through another route. The reality is we have received legal advice on two separate legal grounds and on three occasions. First, the Houses of the Oireachtas and, indeed, Members were advised that the Article 15 requirement to be present for voting was absolute. That was the experience that we had as Members at the beginning of the pandemic. I received that advice myself in the development of this Bill and I note the forum also comments that it received equivalent advice in relation to the necessity to be present for voting. The forum then went a different way about it and considered the question of employee rights and the intersection of employee rights with maternity and paternity rights. The forum's report, at page 24, states "The Forum sought legal advice ... [and the] legal advice provided confirmed that Oireachtas Members are not considered as employees [as such] and, as a result, may not avail of certain employee [rights and] protections" as would their constituents in other working environments outside these Houses. As a priority recommendation, the forum states there should be a referendum to address remote working and proxy voting in these Houses.

I acknowledge that there is legal debate about this. I share the enthusiasm for constitutional development and interpretation more broadly but the straight facts of working as a Member of this House are that we must act within the legal advice to continue to enjoy the presumption of constitutionality. It is not available to us to act outside of that. It is advice in any event with which I personally agree.

It is, of course, a provision in other parliaments to facilitate remote and proxy voting and it has become more common as a consequence of the pandemic. Remote voting is reasonably common in Spain for the reasons I mentioned earlier. Romania introduced electronic voting, as did the European Parliament and Poland. It has proved more difficult in Westminster-style parliaments but even in the UK it was introduced as a trial run in 2019 and, following two extensions, proxy voting was made permanent in cases of maternity leave. There are now calls to extend that to include sick leave.

Whatever mechanism we ultimately use, be it full leave, remote leave, proxy participation or some combination of those, what we need to ensure as we move into the next stage - if this Bill progresses and if it is successful at a referendum and if we end up in a situation of the Houses of the Oireachtas making arrangements for Members for the future - is we cannot be too prescriptive for Members. We must make sure that the choice is determined by the Member, that the Member is facilitated to make the best choice for the Member and the Member's own circumstances, both in early parenthood and in terms of the Member's own assessment of what the Member wants to do in terms of his or her work. There is no question but that at every turn and in every analysis, the ability to participate in votes remotely or by proxy is the first hurdle to overcome and that hurdle is grounded in the current constitutional provision.

If the constitutional change moves through this House and is supported and if it is put to a referendum, I note at the outset that I have never envisaged that this be a stand-alone event. It was always the case that this referendum would never be appropriate or suitable during a pandemic period. Naturally, to facilitate the best running of parliamentary democracy and democracy more generally, you do not want to have referendums that are sticking out on their own for no good reason for us to ask people to come to vote on that. There is a natural confluence with the work being done with the Committee on Gender Equality, established as a consequence of the recommendations of the Citizens' Assembly, of which I am a member and of which Deputy Bacik, who is here today, is Chair. That committee is working specifically at the direction of the Citizens' Assembly on three referendums related to gender equality and it seems like a natural friend that this referendum might sit alongside three referendums such as those at some point in the future. There is no need to take it out on its own, but perhaps consider it in the round.

What I envisage, if it were passed and got the support of the Irish people to make this change, is that it will be then a matter for the Houses of the Oireachtas to consider the type of votes or the types of class of votes, the types of scenarios that are included and not included, the periods for which that might be appropriate or not appropriate, the mechanism by which a Member might apply formally, what the Member might expect in relation to that and, indeed, provision for making changes to those rules over time.

As we all sit here - many of the Members support this Bill and I thank them for that - I am all too aware how much further we must go to achieve true representation in our representative Chamber - whether it is more women, whether more people with disabilities or younger people who perhaps do not see politics as an option that they can juggle alongside the potential of a young family.

It is our job now to think about those who will come after us and to make every provision possible to allow for a larger number of people to seriously consider this job as one they could do while also having a family and to be available to them at those tender moments. We must show that the practical realities of life outside Leinster House apply in here too. Otherwise, how are we to attract a broader group of representatives to our representative Chamber? I look forward to the debate and commend the Bill to the House.

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Before proceeding, I wish to bring a couple of points to the attention of Members. The Minister, representing the Government, and the proposer must have a right to reply at 6.07 p.m. We have four speakers already in attendance over and above the listed time allowed for speakers if everyone is to take their full time. I suggest that Members might consider sharing, in which case we will get everybody in. The Minister of State has the option of making his position clear now or at the end of the debate. We will try to guide as many people through as possible. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Jack Chambers (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I wish to share time with Deputy Lawless.

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Jack Chambers (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the Bill before the House this evening. I thank and commend Deputy Carroll MacNeill on introducing this Bill to the House. The Bill seeks to amend Article 15 of the Constitution to allow both Houses of the Oireachtas to put into Standing Orders circumstances under which Members could vote remotely.

It is very timely that we are debating this issue now. First, because we have seen at first hand the effect the pandemic has had over the past two years on the workings of the Oireachtas and, second, because as a collective we are currently looking at initiatives that could bring about a more family-friendly and inclusive Parliament. The issue of remote voting is an important part of that conversation.

Over the past two years, the Covid-19 pandemic has had a profound impact here in Ireland and on societies and economies across the globe. We know that it is still with us, but thanks to the sacrifices made by people over many months, the strength of solidarity among communities across the country and through the intervention of science with effective vaccines, we hope that the worst is over and that the pandemic's impact is receding. However, similar to other pandemics in the past, Covid-19 leaves in its wake societal, economic, political and cultural changes that will last far beyond the pandemic itself. As policymakers, we must acknowledge this and plan for the new dynamics in our personal and working lives that are now becoming a reality.

Deputy Carroll MacNeill's Bill fits right in to this conversation in terms of changes in how we work here in this House. The use of technologies for remote working have been with us for many years, but none of us realised that physical meetings would be completely replaced by virtual ones. It never occurred to us that significant decisions could be made without having to meet face to face. It has also made us realise how efficient virtual meetings can be, as the need for travelling to and from meetings and commuting from home to the workplace is no longer always necessary. It also had many other positive benefits in terms of issues such as childcare and other caring responsibilities. The pandemic has led to a seismic shift in how we now view our working lives. For many people and businesses remote working or a form of blended or hybrid working is becoming a mutually beneficial work model that can lead to better choice for workers and increased productivity. The Government fully recognises this.

The programme for Government includes several commitments on remote working. Remote work is already a key consideration in the national economic plan, the climate action plan, the town centre living initiative and the smarter travel policy. The Government is committed to increasing remote work adoption in Ireland through removing barriers, developing infrastructure, providing guidance, raising awareness and leading by example in this area. The Government's remote work strategy, published in January last year, built on the progress made in the adoption of remote work over the Covid-19 crisis period. The strategy set out plans to strengthen the rights and responsibilities of employers and employees to provide the infrastructure to work remotely and sets out clear guidance on how people can be empowered to work remotely away from the employer's premises.

A key part of the strategy is a legislative framework and last month, the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment published the general scheme of the Right to Request Remote Working Bill 2022. The legislation will set out a clear framework to facilitate remote and blended working options, in so far as possible. The Bill will give every employee the right to request remote working from their employer. It will ensure that when an employer declines a request, that there are stated, reasonable reasons for doing so and that conversations with workers will take place is a structured way. It will give employers and workers legal clarity on remote working, which became the default for many during the pandemic.

It must be acknowledged that remote working is not for everyone or for every organisation or workplace and a balanced approach to this issue is required. It will, however, ensure that there are better choices and options available for people. The legislation is a key part of the Government's spring legislative programme. Work is also under way to deliver a policy of blended working in the Civil Service. A policy document was published last July and the goal is to deliver a blended working policy that can provide flexibility to both employees and employers in a manner that supports the continued delivery of high-quality services to the public and to businesses while at the same time providing employees with choice and opportunity.

What does all this mean for Members of the Oireachtas? We know that the way we work changed over the past two years. The requirement for social distancing led to an increased use of virtual meetings and it has ongoing benefits. The Business Committee of the Dáil, which meets every Thursday to order the business of this House, continues to meet virtually and I think members of that committee would agree that the use of virtual meetings is a great support to the more efficient use of Members' time. The pandemic has brought into sharp focus an issue that has been discussed for a long time in Leinster House, that of a more family-friendly Parliament. All of us who have the privilege to work here representing our constituents recognise that it is a somewhat atypical workplace, with working hours that make work-life balance challenging, particularly for those Members with young children, with other caring responsibilities and those who live far from Leinster House. I congratulate the forum on a family-friendly and inclusive Parliament and its chair, the former Deputy, Mary Upton, for producing an excellent report in November of last year which puts forward many recommendations on how we might achieve the goal of a more family-friendly and inclusive Parliament. Some of the recommendations echo the proposals in the Private Members' Bill we are discussing here today. I was very pleased in recent days to have been able to implement one of the recommendations in the report, which was to better align the Dáil calendar with school holidays. Following on from a request from the Ceann Comhairle and with the agreement of the Business Committee, I have amended the Dáil calendar so that the Easter break in the Dáil aligns with the school Easter holidays.

I understand that a steering group is being put together to work on the overall implementation of the recommendations in the report. I encourage all Members to support this important initiative. One of the most difficult issues that needs to be addressed for Oireachtas Members is that of maternity leave, paternity leave and sick leave. The report from the forum highlights the fact that these issues are a significant impediment to a family-friendly, inclusive and gender-sensitive working environment for Members. Similar concerns were addressed in the report of the Citizens' Assembly on gender equality, published in June of last year, which recommended making maternity, paternity and parental leave available to all elected representatives, including Ministers and to provide flexible working options, including remote working and voting and adjusting meeting times and rules, to suit caring responsibilities.

The Government has committed in the programme for Government to develop supports and alternatives for Oireachtas Members to take parental leave. My colleague, the Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth, Deputy O'Gorman, recently met with members of the Irish Women's Parliamentary Caucus to get their views on how the provision of maternity leave for Members of the Oireachtas would operate. There will be further engagement with Oireachtas Members on the matter over the coming weeks and months to see how best these issues can be addressed. I look forward to the outcome of the discussions.

I will now turn to the specifics of the Bill before us this evening. In introducing this Bill, Deputy Carroll MacNeill had in mind that remote voting would greatly assist those Members on maternity, paternity or sick leave being able to participate in the legislative process. The Bill, in accordance with Article 46 of the Constitution, seeks to amend Article 15 of the Constitution to provide for each House of the Oireachtas to put into its Standing Orders circumstances under which Members could vote remotely. At present, the Constitution does not allow for the Oireachtas to sit or to vote remotely. Article 15.1.3° of the Constitution envisages that the Houses of the Oireachtas will sit in or near Dublin, but that the Oireachtas can sit in such other place as they may determine, which is understood to mean another physical location. Article 15.11.1° provides that all questions in each House shall be determined by a majority of the votes of the Members present and voting other than the Chairman. This is understood as requiring the physical presence of Members. This constitutional provision led to the development of innovative solutions to ensure that the Oireachtas could continue to do its work and that votes could be taken during the pandemic while ensuring the safety of the parliamentary community. Once again, I thank the Houses of the Oireachtas Service for all its hard work in keeping both Houses up and running in two separate locations, while at the same time keeping everyone safe.

Of course, this was not the only parliament that had to tackle the issue of members having to be present to vote. I noted with interest a report by the Oireachtas Library and Research Service from April 2020 which stated that remote voting was the most challenging parliamentary procedure most parliaments had to deal with during the pandemic. Countries such as the UK, Austria, Canada, Denmark, Germany, Finland and Israel all require their members to be present and voting. The solutions found by other parliaments were similar to those of the Oireachtas, with the use of remote meetings where possible, reduced footfall within parliament buildings and agreement among all members on reduced voting.

I note the report of the Forum on a Family Friendly and Inclusive Parliament also recommends that Article 15 of the Constitution be amended. The Deputy’s Private Members’ Bill aims to address remote voting by amending Article 15.11 of the Constitution with the insertion of a new subsection 4 which states, “Each House may make its own rules and Standing Orders providing for special and limited circumstances in which members of the House concerned, who are not present in that House, may vote when any matter or any class of matter as so provided for, is to be determined by a vote of that House.” This is a complex matter and one that will require significant thought. Any changes to Article 15.11 in terms of remote voting or any wider changes allied to that in terms of remote working would also need to take into account other provisions in the Constitution. Article 15.1.3o of the Constitution envisages that the Houses of the Oireachtas will sit in or near Dublin, or in such other place as they may determine, which is understood to mean another physical location. We would have to examine how this would fit into a scenario where Members are participating virtually. Following on from the constitutional requirement to be physically present in a physical structure, how would virtual participation work with Article 15.12 of the Constitution, which provides for utterances in the House being privileged?

Finally, we must also ensure, in an overall way, that the much-needed introduction of family friendly policies is balanced appropriately with the constitutional obligation under Article 16 that Dáil Éireann be composed of Members who represent constituencies determined by law.

These are all matters that need to be examined and analysed closely and are questions that have been discussed in these Chambers for a long time now. The pandemic has shown us that when something has to be done, it can be done. We have a great opportunity now to work together to identify and to provide the longer term solutions that will make the Oireachtas a more family friendly and inclusive Parliament. This, in turn, it is hoped, will encourage more people to participate in political life.

As I have stated, the Government is not opposing this Bill. I again sincerely congratulate Deputy Carroll MacNeill on proactively proposing this Bill and providing an opportunity and a focus for addressing this issue as part of the overall discussion on this agenda. I look forward to hearing the views of the Deputies present and debating this important matter further in the context of the legislation.

James Lawless (Kildare North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Bill and I commend Deputy Carroll MacNeill on bringing it forward. The Government will be supporting it, as the Chief Whip has outlined. It is a very important Bill. What it does is put beyond doubt the availability of remote voting and remote participation, should it be passed in a referendum. That is a very necessary and crucial part of our response to the recent pandemic and to other matters.

The Deputy has well described the family friendly situations and arrangements that may be assisted through legislation of this type. The Deputy spoke about small babies. Even for someone whose babies are no longer small, coming in at 1 a.m. regularly on a midweek night is not necessarily welcome or conducive to good household management, so I believe it goes across the board. Those measures are very well described by the Deputy and very important.

As the Deputy said, there was some legal debate on what the requirements actually say at present and what was interpreted at the time within the Oireachtas. I commend the Oireachtas on its flexibility in the management of the pandemic, but there may have been ways in which the existing provisions could have been interpreted somewhat differently to have allowed this kind of activity to take place. As the Chief Whip has outlined with regard to the constitutional provisions in Article 15.1.3o and Article 15.11 in terms of Deputies being present and voting and in terms of the Oireachtas meeting in Dublin or some other place, there is nothing in the Constitution that says that other place must be a physical place. Apart from the word “Dublin”, Cork, Galway, Limerick or anywhere else is not prescribed and there is some academic debate that “a place” could be a virtual place. The Internet is a place. If there was a requirement for it to be physical, which is not in the text of the Constitution, a server farm or a hosting facility is a physical place and the IP network is a physical place. Suffice to say, there has been significant discussion on that point. I think “a place” could be interpreted as being a virtual place.

I acknowledge the work of people like Ciarán Toland SC and the constitutional reform group, which has put significant academic endeavour into this. They would speak to the purpose of the interpretation of the Constitution in terms of what the founding fathers envisaged when they were framing these provisions. They envisaged it would be secure and safe and would involve representatives from all over the country – Teachtaí Dála, or messengers to the House. There is nothing to suggest they intended it would be one physical sitting in one place. If we take that purpose of interpretation, we can see the arguments that they make.

On another point, Dr. Seán Ó Conaill, a noted academic, pointed out that the Irish version of the Constitution, which takes precedence in the event of any conflict, refers to “nó cibé áit eile”, or “wherever else”, loosely translated. “Wherever else” is even less prescriptive in terms of being open to interpretation and flexibility.

As I said, if this Bill is passed, a referendum would put it beyond doubt. It is notable that many other institutions have already embraced such remote decision-making. The courts, that other arm of the State under the separation of powers, have already embraced it with gusto and there have probably been thousands of High Court decisions ordered, made and ruled over the past two years, and that has not been challenged in any credible or successful way. It is also a fact the Cabinet has met in an incorporeal fashion for many years now, and that continues to take place notwithstanding the constitutional provisions around it. Put simply, remote participation is to be encouraged and welcomed. I am unconvinced we actually need to change the laws to do it, but let us do it if it helps to get that clarity and foundation to enable it to happen.

It is a very important Bill and I commend the Deputy on bringing it forward. I certainly support its intent and its detail.

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We have to recalibrate because we have nine speakers and limited time. I propose that each speaker would take three minutes. I call Deputy Farrell.

Alan Farrell (Dublin Fingal, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is no problem. I commend Deputy Carroll MacNeill on the introduction of this Bill, which is an eminently sensible solution to a constitutional problem.

I thank Deputy Lawless for making the point that the Irish version of the Constitution takes precedence and it is far less prescriptive in regard to where, and I think the “where” is important. A debate did ensue when we were relocated to the Convention Centre as to what “where” meant, and whether it could be a constituency office, for instance. We have to come up with reasonable solutions to what is an eminently resolvable issue and Deputy Carroll MacNeill's proposal does just that.

I am reminded, in reading her First Stage speech, as I did this afternoon in preparation for this debate, that I can think of literally two dozen Members of the House in my 11 years here who would have, and undoubtedly could have, availed of such a provision if it were law. I am thinking of at least two Members I can recall who themselves have had babies: Deputy Niamh Smyth and the Minister, Deputy McEntee. Quite a number of Deputies, including two current Deputies I am aware of, me and Deputy Dillon, have become fathers while Members of the House. I can think of many occasions where, as Deputy Lawless mentioned, it was not exactly conducive to a family friendly parliament. In fact, I recall the Ceann Comhairle made a big deal out of the fact a well-known newscaster had made a point about family friendly being the focus of the Oireachtas yet we were voting on our weekly divisions at 2:33 a.m., and how ironic it was. There are many occasions where Members would very much appreciate the opportunity, in a secure manner, under certain circumstances, as the Deputy outlined in her Bill, where we could press a button to vote or indicate visually to other Members. For the benefit of people watching at home, we have enormous televisions in this Chamber which are eminently visible to all of us, and I am sure other provisions could be made to ensure the security of the vote is never questioned.

I am also thinking of Members who have injured themselves.

The Ministers of State, Deputies Naughton and Madigan, for instance, have injured themselves during this Dáil term and it might not have been possible for them to leave their homes but they could have participated or voted, or both. Deputies Naughten and Cannon have had serious injuries in the recent past and after a period of convalescence they probably would have been able to participate or vote, or both, if they wanted to. It is imperative that we take the lead of the European Parliament. I had reason to sit and watch a debate in the European Parliament and it was evident that Members all over Europe were participating in parliamentary debates in Brussels via a secure link. I am not sure whether they voted; they probably indicated their preference on issues during the course of a particular debate. That is something we can achieve.

As the Deputy has rightly outlined, this could not be a stand-alone referendum but it is an opportunity for us to put together a number of minor suggestions, not that this is minor. However, there are minor questions that the public would be encouraged to support and this is most likely one of them. There are a number of others. I recall, as I am sure the Acting Chairman will, a thorough debate on the programme for Government in 2011 about having a referendum day to update our Constitution. That included, in particular and probably most importantly, a suggestion to have a referendum on the reference to a woman’s place being in the home, which the Government has let fester for 11 years. I am never happy with that because there have been lots of opportunities for us to undo it but we have not done so. Perhaps this is an opportunity for us to have a referendum on something of substance and that is important, to which this referendum would lend itself because it is about a family friendly Parliament, treating women as equals, and ensuring that Members of the House can participate or vote, or both, when it is deemed appropriate by the Houses, for which this House determines anyway. That is possible.

Emer Higgins (Dublin Mid West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputy Carroll MacNeill for all her work on this and for bringing this Bill before the House. The fact that it has such strong cross-party support is welcome and good to see. That speaks to the fact that this Bill is a common sense one that would make life in politics more inclusive, family friendly and flexible in adapting to emergency situations when they arise.

This is a particularly important Bill for women. The lack of provision for maternity and family leave can be off-putting for young women considering a career in politics and as Deputy Carroll MacNeill has outlined, the Bill would provide for a proxy parliamentary voting system to formally allow various types of leave, including maternity, parental and adoptive leave, a provision we definitely need. Recently we were forced to look at this matter and the fact that no Cabinet Minister previous to the Minister for Justice, Deputy McEntee, had ever been pregnant in office tells us all we need to know about how welcoming Irish politics is for young women who want to start a family. I hope this Bill will encourage a conversation and start a process of significant and positive change to improve our parliamentary community. For so long we have witnessed real barriers to consideration of a career in our national Parliament. This Bill was a key recommendation of the Forum on a Family Friendly and Inclusive Parliament last year, which was initiated by our Ceann Comhairle. It is a recommendation that will make life as a parliamentarian a more attractive, rewarding and accessible career option for people from every walk of life.

This is important given the challenges we faced in these past two years. It is vital that lessons are learned and that we properly equip ourselves for any potential future emergencies that might arise. It is also important that any fears about this measure being abused should be alleviated by the fact that the Bill would provide for remote or proxy voting only in limited and specified circumstances. We need our Parliament to be more diverse, flexible and adaptable. I welcome the role this Bill will play in improving parliamentary life on both those fronts.

I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate my colleague, Deputy Carroll MacNeill. The Deputy is an active member of the Oireachtas women’s caucus, which is a great example of female parliamentarians coming together, leaving their politics at the door and utilising their time to unite in their cause for a diverse and inclusive Parliament and for legislation that benefits women up and down this country. Deputy Carroll MacNeill comes from a legal background and it is fantastic to see her utilising her professional experience and technical knowledge to bring forward such a progressive Bill. Deputy Carroll MacNeill and I worked together for a while about a decade ago and I can clearly remember her answer from then when someone asked her what was her favourite book. It was Bunreacht na hÉireann, the Constitution of Ireland. That is why it is so special to see her bringing forward a Bill today that may well pave the way to an amendment to that very Constitution. I congratulate the Deputy; well done.

Neale Richmond (Dublin Rathdown, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am slightly concerned about what bedtime stories in the Carroll MacNeill household contain but I am grateful to Deputy Higgins for that elusive comment. I sincerely welcome this Bill and I thank Deputy Carroll MacNeill for introducing it.

If it was not for a global pandemic, there is no chance I would have had any paternity leave with my second child. I distinctly remember leaving the National Maternity Hospital on Holles Street for a vote in the Seanad two days after the birth of my first child. It was not much craic for me, the child or my wife and I am still regularly reminded of it. This goes to the point that our democracy is not fit for purpose in representative terms. There are far too many archaic barriers to ensuring this Parliament is truly representative of the entire society. This Bill goes a small way to rectifying that but I hope it is sincerely, as Deputy Alan Farrell has mentioned, the start of a general approach to relooking at how we do parliamentary democracy in this country. We should use the examples of other countries and use the opportunities and lessons of the pandemic to produce a much better form of parliamentary democracy. I referenced access to paternity leave, and far more importantly, I want to reference access to maternity leave for Members of the Oireachtas. What also requires due consideration is those who might require sick leave or have become immunocompromised, and their ability to carry out their duties as Members of the Oireachtas.

I reference the case of Amy Callaghan, who is the Member of the Parliament in Westminster for East Dunbartonshire for the Scottish National Party. This week, against doctor’s orders she has returned to the UK Parliament so that she can vote and speak on a Bill. She is putting her life at risk as an immunocompromised person who suffered a serious brain haemorrhage not so long ago in order to simply do her job. The fact is the Houses of Parliament were able to make changes to maternity leave but we have to see it through to make sure these changes are fully encompassing.

As Deputy Carroll MacNeill mentioned, I was one of the Oireachtas Members who sat on the Forum on a Family Friendly and Inclusive Parliament. Over the course of a number of meetings, all held virtually under the good chairpersonship of Mary Upton, a number of issues came out. The report has been put in every Member’s pigeon hole at this stage and I hope they all have a chance to read it. I appreciate that some of the 54 recommendations are probably far-reaching and not realistic. It showed the dynamic of having a forum made up of parliamentarians along with people from the private sector, the NGO sector, and society at large. There is some obvious and low-hanging fruit and there are some obvious wins that could make this democracy so much more inclusive and accessible. I fundamentally believe the passage of this Bill and, in due course, the passage of a related referendum, is one of those obvious things. I am slightly concerned that when an opinion poll about this Bill was put up on one of the news sites, there was quite a lot of opposition to it. The commentary that ensued was the type of anti-politics and anti-democratic commentary that all of us have a responsibility, regardless of party and of whether we agree with this legislation or not, to combat. That goes for everything we do in this House and in these Houses but it is of major concern.

I refer to the semi-related point of privilege. One of the things that struck those of us who were members of the forum – I hope it struck all of us in recent months – was the situation in committees. We were all dialled into meetings but we all had to travel into Leinster House to make use of privilege.

It is absolutely farcical and it should be changed. That would give Deputies and Senators, particularly those from outside Dublin, the opportunity to participate in committee meetings on Tuesdays while gaining a precious four hours or 24 hours with their families at home.

I commend this Bill and look forward to supporting it through all Stages. I also look forward to campaigning in a referendum to amend the Constitution very soon.

Ciarán Cannon (Galway East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I also commend Deputy Carroll MacNeill on putting forward this far-seeing Bill which seeks to amend our Constitution and ultimately change the way we do things in this building so that it becomes a far more family-friendly workplace.

I have been deeply fortunate to have been walking in the gates of Leinster House for 15 years now. It is an extraordinary privilege to be able to do so, to represent the people of Galway East, to air their views and their aspirations for the Ireland they aspire to. We never lose sight of that. I do not think any one of us in this House ever loses sight of what an extraordinary privilege it is to be here. That said, 15 years ago I had a ten-year-old son. He is now 25 and very happy but there is no question that my relationship with him suffered in those 15 years as a result of the work practices within this building. In the last number of years, those work practices have become even less family friendly and continue to pile even more pressure on all of us who work within this Parliament.

This Bill not alone gives us cause to reflect on the very specific changes that need to be made to our Constitution to make this place a far more family-friendly workplace, it should also force us into questioning what other aspects of this workplace make it so unfriendly to being parents and carers for those who matter to us in our lives. When we introduced gender quotas a number of years ago, it was a very welcome development in terms of making this House, and indeed the other House, a far more diverse place that is far more representative of Irish society as a whole. However, I always felt that it was not the far-reaching solution that we needed in order to ensure that we would see that kind of diversity in Leinster House. Quotas are part of the solution but I fundamentally believe that we could throw open the gates of Leinster House tomorrow morning to people from all walks of life but once they had an opportunity to talk to somebody who works here, they might think twice about pursuing a career in politics. Ultimately, that is what we have to look at here. How do we ensure that anybody who is contemplating a life in politics, a life of public service and democratic representation feels they are going into a place that is family friendly and conducive to having good, strong healthy relationships with those people who matter in their lives? This is really important and ground-breaking legislation from Deputy Carroll MacNeill that forces us to ask questions of ourselves, to ask what we need to do to ensure that kind of change happens.

At the end of what has been an extraordinarily challenging time for our country in terms of the pandemic and as we return to normal, it is very important that we question what aspects of normal are worth returning to. If all we do is turn the page and return to 2019 and if things continue on as they did before, then we will have lost the opportunity to learn a lot of very valuable lessons from how things were done during that time. We pressed the fast forward button on how we can shape our workplaces for the future. Remote working became part of life for those of us who work in this place and for many thousands who work elsewhere. In that context, we should lead by example and look at opportunities to allow for participation in the parliamentary process from remote locations. Perhaps it will not be as difficult as we think and the technology certainly exists to allow us to do that. There are successful examples of this in other countries and, as others have said, in the European Parliament itself. That can be the new normal.

The women and men who drafted our Constitution 80 years ago never envisaged the world we live in right now, in 2022. They never envisaged the opportunities that are presenting to us right now to create far more family-friendly workplaces that people would find attractive. This is a very special moment in the life of the Houses of the Oireachtas, when we look to establish a workplace that is family friendly and conducive to people being normal, active and participative members of society. I commend Deputy Carroll MacNeill and look forward to seeing the remaining elements of this legislation passing as quickly as possible.

Ivana Bacik (Dublin Bay South, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am delighted to have the chance to speak on this important Bill and I commend Deputy Carroll MacNeill on her initiative in bringing it forward. It is really important that we are debating this very timely legislation and it is really good to hear the very honest contributions to the debate from the men and women who have spoken. When I was first elected to these Houses in 2007, to the Seanad, I was pregnant with my second daughter. It was shocking to me how difficult it was to accommodate a baby within these precincts. I was very grateful to the women Members who had gone before me on whose initiative a crèche had been established. After some difficulty, I was able to access the crèche which was hugely helpful. It meant that I could run over and breastfeed a small baby and contribute to Seanad debates on a part-time basis. In those early months, one really wants to be spending as much time at home as possible but at the same time, as an elected representative, when there was no provision for maternity leave, there was an imperative to also be contributing.

This Bill is an important part of a whole package of measures that are necessary to modernise our Parliament, as Deputy Carroll MacNeill said herself, and to make it more inclusive, more friendly towards women, towards men with caring responsibilities, more family friendly and more flexible. It is timely because as we are coming through the pandemic, all of us have learned the benefits of remote working. All of us are navigating that process of trying to facilitate more working from home. When we are seeing that debate taking place in workplaces more generally, it is very important that we in the Houses of Oireachtas would lead by example and seek to facilitate remote working. It is unfortunate that it will require a constitutional amendment to do so. I have spoken with my colleague Deputy Howlin, who has long experience of Dáil procedure, and he says that it should be possible to allow for committees to conduct hearings remotely and to continue to do so. We are doing it already but there is this strange anomaly whereby we can participate in committee meetings remotely from our offices but not from outside the precincts. I live a ten-minute cycle away from Leinster House, in Dublin Bay South. I cannot participate remotely in a committee meeting from my home office but I can participate from my office here in the precinct. There are anomalies that require addressing and it is very important, therefore, that we bring this legislation forward.

As others have said, this is also in keeping with recommendations that were made by Mary Upton's excellent committee on a family friendly and inclusive parliament and with the recommendations of the Citizens' Assembly on gender equality. I thank Deputy Carroll MacNeill for her reference to my work in that regard. I am very proud and honoured to have been appointed as Chairperson of the Oireachtas Special Committee on Gender Equality. Our brief or remit is to ensure the implementation of the 45 recommendations of the Citizens' Assembly on gender equality. One of those recommendations in particular, recommendation No. 23, relates to improving family-friendly practices for all representatives elected to public office. The Citizens' Assembly recommended flexible working options, not just within Parliament but also at local authority level. It also recommended making maternity, paternity and parental leave available to all elected representatives, including Ministers. That is long overdue. I was glad, in another role as Vice Chair of the women's caucus, along with Senator Fiona O'Loughlin, to meet the Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth and hear his proposals for bringing forward maternity, paternity and parental leave for public representatives.

There is clearly a momentum behind these measures and that is really important. The Oireachtas Committee on Gender Equality will be putting forward very practical recommendations to Government as to how to implement the Citizen's Assembly recommendations. As Deputy Carroll MacNeill has said, among our recommendations will be how we bring forward those three recommendations for constitutional change to create a more inclusive Constitution, one that is updated and that provides for gender equality, a more inclusive definition of family and that will change the very sexist language around women's role and the role of mothers.

6 o’clock

The amendment that Deputy Carroll MacNeill is proposing in this Bill would be an integral part of a package of amendments to be put to the people in one day. That would be a really good way of approaching this, not so much as a stand-alone amendment but one that is very much part of an amendment that is about creating a more gender-equal Ireland where women have a more equal status and, in particular, where women are more facilitated, supported and encouraged in running for public office. We should not forget that our Parliament still looks very male, stale and pale - perhaps not as much as it was when I was first elected to the Seanad in 2007, but it is certainly still very, very male. After my election to the Dáil last year, I was very struck by how different it is from the Seanad. Only 23% of Deputies are female. There is 40% women's representation in the Seanad. Let us make the Dáil more representative of women and let us bring forward a range of measures to do that.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Teachta Carroll MacNeill as an reachtaíocht thábhachtach seo a thabhairt chun tosaigh. Ní féidir linn a bheith hypocritical nuair a rithimid Achtanna sa Teach seo ag rá leis an bpobal i gcoitinne gur gá dóibh athruithe a dhéanamh. Táimid ag iarraidh a chinntiú nach bhfuil mná thíos leis de bharr rialacha, mar a bhí, agus muid ag tabhairt isteach reachtaíocht ó thaobh tréimhsí saoire do thuismitheoirí nuair atá páiste nua acu, nuair atá fadhbanna ag tuismitheoirí le páistí níos sine, nó nuair is gá dóibh téarmaí cúraim a dhéanamh dá dtuismitheoirí nó fiú do na páistí. Caithfidh muidne teacht suas leis an gcuid eile den tsochaí agus is trua go bhfuil an méid seo sa Bhunreacht ag cur baic orainn. Measaim féin nach sin a bhí i gceist ach b’fhéidir go bhfuil breall orm. Nuair atá fadhbanna sa Bhunreacht, caithfimid é a thógáil suas chun dáta, é a athrú nó fáil réidh leis an gcuid sin atá ag cruthú fadhbanna.

Tógaim a deis seo mo chomhghairdeas a ghabháil leis an Teachta Violet-Anne Wynne atá páiste nua aici. Bhí sí anseo an tseachtain seo caite nó an tseachtain roimhe sin. Bhí páiste nua aici ar an mbealach go Kilrush Golf Club. Smaoinigh dá mbeadh sí anseo. Bheadh fadhb ann mar nílimid eagraithe mar institiúid chun déileáil le gnáthshaol máithreacha, nó daoine de gach uile inscne. Rugadh m’iníon nuair a bhí mé tofa anseo ar feadh bliana. Ní raibh aon saoire aithreachais nó máithreachais i gceist ag an am sin agus ní raibh aon smaoineamh ann faoi. Tagann brú laistigh den pháirtí chun bheith ar ais, go háirithe más páirtí beag atá ann. Ní dúirt aon duine liom bheith ar ais mar ba mise an Whip ag an am - bhí mé in ann a rá liom féin nach gá dom bheith anseo ach tagann an brú sin. Tagann sé ar gach duine ach tá sé níos éasca, b'fhéidir, i ngrúpaí móra. Thar na blianta mar Whip, nuair a tháinig tuismitheoirí le páistí óga chugam ag lorg péireáil, rinne mé iarracht cloí leis sin ionas go mbeadh deis acu dul abhaile nuair a bhí an seans acu, cé nach raibh an seans againn i gcónaí.

Tá sé ceart go bhféachaimid ar an gceist seo. Níor thit an domhan as a chéile ar bhealach amháin nó bealach eile nuair a bhí muid ag obair ón mbaile le linn na paindéime. Ba léir do gach duine go raibh muid in ann, nó gur chóir go mbeadh muid in ann, vóta a chaitheamh ón mbaile. Is féidir é a dhéanamh i ngach uile ré eile den domhan. Ní gá ach féachaint ar na comhlachtaí móra rúnda nó na comhlachtaí móra atá airgead acu. Ní raibh cruinnithe board of directors ag na bainc - glacaim leis go raibh siadsan in ann vóta a chaitheamh - nó ag leithéidí an UN agus daoine mar sin. Caithfear déileáil leis an trealamh atá ann anois chun go mbeadh gach rud slán.

Mar a dúirt an Teachta Alan Farrell, smaoinigh dá mbeadh an scáileán sa Seomra seo briste suas, agus siúd atá tinn a bheith marcáilte. Bhí Comhaltaí tinn nó fiú ag fáil bháis nach raibh in ann freastail ar an Dáil. Ba chóir go mbeadh an deis acu, más gá, vóta a chaitheamh ó lasmuigh den institiúid seo nó go mbeadh duine éigin in ann seasamh isteach ar a son. I bParlaimint na hEorpa, tá liosta ann nuair a táthar ag seasamh sa toghcháin agus, más gá éirí as, tagann duine eile isteach. Ar na húdaráis áitiúla, más gá éirí as is féidir le duine éigin eile teacht isteach mar substitute nó i gcomharba ar an té atá ag éirí as. Níl aon bhealach againne é sin a dhéanamh. Níl Comhaltaí sásta éirí as an suíochán má táthar i bpáirtí beag nó má tá stró ar an gceantar toisc go gcaillfidh an páirtí an suíochán. Mar sin, tá ualach sa bhreis ar dhaoine bheith anseo.

Tá an smaoineamh seo i gceart ach caithfimid an chuid praiticiúil a oibriú amach. Má táimid ag dul go dtí an pobal ag lorg vóta air seo, níor cheart go dteipfí air seo mar cuirfeadh sé sin siar muid. Theip ar reifreann a bhí beagnach na páirtithe uilig taobh thiar de roimhe seo nuair a chuaigh muid go dtí an pobal. Caithimid déanamh cinnte de go bhfuil na freagraí againn, go dtuigimid conas mar a oibríonn sé agus nach bhfuil sé ag cur as don tslí gur chóir go mbeadh Teachtaí ag caitheamh vótaí, ach amháin in amanna eisceachtúla nuair atá siad tinn, i mháithreachais, i dtuismitheoireachta nó a leithéid.

Tacaím leis an mBille. Tá súil agam go ndéanfar bogadh air go tapa go mbeimid in ann déileáil leis na fadhbanna bunúsacha eile sa Bhunreacht atá ag cur i gcoinne daoine de gach inscne a bheith anseo. Beidh an Bunreacht níos nua-aimseartha toisc a leithéid de leasú seo. Seo tús, tacaím leis agus más féidir linn aon chabhair a thabhairt chun go mbeidh sé tríd na Dála chomh tapa agus is féidir agus amach ansin leis an gcuid eile den reachtaíocht do reifrinn atá ag teacht, tacóidh muid leis.

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputy. He has been very co-operative. He should be in a watch factory as he has perfect timing. The Government has five minutes.

Jack Chambers (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Once again, I thank Deputy Carroll MacNeill for proposing this Bill. It has been a very interesting debate. I thank all the Deputies for their contributions. There have been personal reflections by Members who have been here many years and who have spoken of their own difficulties. The Dáil as it currently sits is not one that is inclusive or aligned with something to which we can expect to attract people. As Deputy Bacik mentioned, increased female participation is really important. All parties have an obligation to drive that forward. I think we will see progress on that at the next general election but we must make the workings of our Parliament far more inclusive in all aspects. Many of the stories we have heard today show how it deters many when they see the inner workings of these Houses. There is a cross-party approach and the Ceann Comhairle has established good structures to progress many matters. We have seen the evolution of that with this Bill.

Remote working is one element of a wider agenda in making the Oireachtas a more family-friendly and inclusive workplace. As others have mentioned, as well as this Bill there are many recommendations from the Forum on a Family Friendly and Inclusive Parliament and from the Citizens' Assembly. The new Joint Committee on Gender Equality that Deputy Bacik chairs will also play an important role in seeing how we can mould the recommendations from the Citizens' Assembly into tangible policy outcomes. It is important and positive that is being progressed now.

There are strong commitments in the programme for Government to develop supports and alternatives for Oireachtas Members to take parental leave. One of the forum's recommendations was something that the Ceann Comhairle spoke about, namely aligning sittings around school holidays which has been a difficulty for Deputies and Senators over a long period. We did not align the sitting calendars and that made things very difficult for some Members. My colleague, the Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth, has already started to progress discussions with Members on how we might best improve family-friendly policies in these Houses.

It is clear that there is significant momentum behind the proposals for a more family-friendly and inclusive Parliament. While the matters are complex, and, as highlighted this evening, involve different competing constitutional obligations, I believe it is up to all of us to work together to come up with workable solutions which may or may not involve legislative or constitutional change. I look forward to future discussions on the issues raised in this legislation and thank Deputy Carroll MacNeill for her work in progressing this matter.

Jennifer Carroll MacNeill (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State and indeed all Deputies who came and participated in this debate. I greatly appreciate their interest, support and contribution. I especially thank them for the personal reflections they brought to the House. To reflect on one's own experience is not always an easy thing to do, particularly in a forum like this, but it does help tell those stories about why it is important. We tell the stories of our constituents, but to advance and evolve our democracy it is important to sometimes reflect on the personal experiences we have had. There is absolutely no point in coming in, pulling up the ladder and pretending it is easy to be here when it is not. We need to be honest with people and say we do it, we see these issues, we face the challenges, we get on and we try to fix them but we do it anyway and they can too. This is all about trying to bring more people into this Chamber, trying to be more inclusive and reaching out further and further.

We have had a very good parliamentary structure that has served us extremely well but our democracy is essentially always incomplete. There is always more to do and more that can be improved upon. It is naturally incomplete if half the population is not represented here in a reasonable way over time. That has never been the case and we need to take the steps we can to get to that point. Democracy, and our institutions of democracy, must keep pace with our need to reflect the will of our people and the things that are important to them. Where we find barriers we must take steps to try to address them. This is simply an effort to do that. I recognise how complex it is. I recognise the read-across constitutionally. I recognise the academic debate around it, that is, whether it is necessary, the read-across on the questions of parliamentary privilege and how that is linked. Deputy Howlin also mentioned that to me. It is, of course, part of the same conversation. My effort is to try to begin to tackle that initial barrier and ask what is it, at its core, that we must be here for that is perhaps a barrier to maternity, paternity and sick leave. The answer is, of course, voting. I hope nobody would take from this that I do not see it as important to be here. Being here and standing here is the privilege of my professional career. It is so enjoyable. It is such a privilege to be able to participate, to vote, to be part of the parliamentary structure and to serve constituents. At the same time, I recognise that for the institutions to evolve and become stronger and better and for more people to come easily into those structures they must be questioned, challenged and helped to evolve as time goes on. As the Minister of State, Deputies Bacik, Ó Snodaigh and others have said, these things must happen together. There is a confluence of events at the moment that requires, as Dr. Catherine Day said at the citizens' assembly, real seismic change around some of these issues. There is that opportunity but only if we take those points and run with them.

I noted what Deputy Richmond mentioned about the poll on thejournal.ie, which is interesting. Of course, it is easy to give a quick reaction to something like that, such as a quick question on whether you are in favour of or against something. The Deputy was talking about some of the comments on it. It is hard to see some of those and think people might believe we do not really want to do the work or that we are not very happy to be here. Of course we are. It is not about making life easier for politicians. It is about opening up the Parliament to more people and making it easier for them to be here. It is about opening up rather than trying to protect or serve ourselves.

We have had separate conversations about the need for more female representation and very strong debates on that to the effect that there must be more women in politics and that women in politics must be facilitated, and there was the debate around the Minister, Deputy McEntee, and the particular challenges she faced as a Cabinet Minister. That is all very well but when one brings these measures to try to realise some of that ambition, and indeed when they are brought forward by women such as myself or Deputy Bacik as part of the committee or Dr. Day as part of the assembly, rationally, it is important those be supported or at least discussed in a serious way as steps. That is the debate we have had here. I greatly welcome it. It was a genuinely positive debate about an effort to be constructive. We will see how we can take it forward through Committee Stage. There is more debate to be had about the wording. I understand the complexity of that, including the concerns around the Attorney General and the read-across about other issues. Those are debates we can have and are open to having. I thank Members for facilitating the debate, for participating and for being as encouraging and supportive as they have been.