Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I am very delighted to second the amendment moved by Senator Ruane, and I will be proposing an additional one. Both are constructive and reasonable and they seek to tighten the timeframe and focus of the citizens’ assembly.

It is important to note that while a citizens’ assembly may have value as one part of a national conversation on and response to the issue of the repeal of the eighth amendment, it must not bracket or confine that conversation and it is not sufficient. A citizens’ assembly is not sufficient to answer Ireland’s obligations under UN law. When the Government presents on the universal periodic review in September and responds to the UN ruling on the case bravely taken by Amanda Mellet, it cannot hide behind the citizens' assembly. It will be asked for a much more comprehensive response and it will not be sufficient. Neither is the citizens’ assembly sufficient to respond to the urgent public demand for action to repeal the eighth amendment. It will not be sufficient to address the urgency felt by the thousands of women who will travel abroad this year, or even those couples who are considering starting a family but with the shadow of fear over them in regard to the issue of fatal foetal abnormalities and the cases we have sadly seen paraded through the courts. It is owing to this urgency that I am seconding the amendment tabled by Senator Ruane to ensure a tighter, clearer timeline for the delivery of recommendations and for responding to those recommendations within our committee system.

I will be tabling an amendment on the focus of the citizens’ assembly. A specific issue requires a specific discussion and a special mechanism, and it should not be diluted. I propose the removal of paragraphs (ii), (iii) and (iv). Beside the facts that the issues referred to in these paragraphs are effectively apples and oranges and that they are completely different issues thrown together without a clear case being made as to how or why they were chosen, there is genuine concern that they could serve to delay the further delivery of action. Given the prevarication and the failure acknowledged by the Government to respond in a timely manner to the recommendations of the Constitutional Convention, anything that will bundle or widen the discussion and lead to an excuse for further delay must be scrutinised. I am particularly concerned that the imperative to hold a referendum should not be delayed further by a discussion on how referendums should be held. I can see how this could serve as an excuse for an additional three months, six months or year. We cannot risk that.

The discussion of the challenges and opportunities resulting from an ageing population would be laudable if we had not already had this conversation. With Older and Bolder, I had the privilege of working with over 1,000 older people across the country who participated in a consultation on the national positive ageing strategy. They contributed their ideas on delivering what is recognised as a blueprint for addressing the challenges and opportunities facing them. They are concerned. I have spoken to people from Active Retirement, for example, who are extremely concerned that this assembly will be used as an opportunity to delay the implementation of the plan to which they devoted energy as citizens and to which they made a contribution. I do not understand how moving that issue back to the drawing board, with 99 new people, in any way serves the older people of the country. In fact, it is an act of disrespect. I ask that older people be respected, in addition to the women who are making difficult decisions and counting the days, weeks and months. This is why I am asking the Minister to remove these items and support my amendment.

Out of respect for the fact that the climate change provision was put through by the Lower House, I am not proposing its removal, although the assembly may not be the best place to discuss it.