Gerard Craughwell (Independent) | Oireachtas source

Following on from my colleague, Senator Mullen, I have to talk about the democratic process. For something as serious as a constitutional amendment, to come to the House and give a couple of hours of debate to two major changes to the Constitution is repugnant to the very House itself and everything we stand for.

One of the Minister's colleagues, during an interview on a radio station with me this morning, said that if the House brings forward an amendment the Minister thinks has merit, he would accept it. If he did, how will he square the circle? This must be finished, done and dusted, by tomorrow afternoon to meet the 8 March deadline. My colleague, Senator McDowell, said this is a gimmick and it is. It has all the hallmarks of a gimmick. The Government wants to bring forward this referendum on International Women's Day. Why could the legislation not have been debated properly in both Houses and the referendum take place on the same day as the European and local elections? Why did it have to happen on 8 March?

I congratulate the Government because it will now once again turn Irish society into a polarised society due to a constitutional referendum. My colleague, Senator McGreehan, spoke about the hierarchy of families. Nobody in my lifetime ever mentioned the hierarchy of families until today. I have never experienced or heard that term used ever in my life. Any family I have ever encountered in my life, whether it was single parent, cohabiting couples, gay couples or anything else, for me constituted a family. We are now in a situation where we are entering into a constitutional amendment and the first thing out of the blocks was one of the NGOs, the National Women's Council, stating publicly in The Irish Timesthat if a no vote is carried, it gives the State the oppressive role of keeping women from careers or employment. Where is that coming from? How can the chief executive of an NGO come out and say something like that?Show me one instance in this country where a woman was prevented from pursuing her career. I would go back to the marriage ban and all of those things, which are all in the past. Ms Justice Denham in her judgment said that there is nothing in Article 41.2 that assigns women to a domestic role or in any way limits their access to a career.

I can see the argument already starting and friends falling out over this. Why in God's name does the Minister have to do this? What he is doing in this referendum is making the State indifferent to whether parents are married or not. That is really what he is doing. Whether the Minister likes it or not, he is presiding over the rushing of hugely important legislation through the Houses with absolutely no regard to the function of Parliament. It is not like him, so I would love to know where this is coming from.

I am deeply concerned. We called a citizens' assembly and established a committee on gender equality, neither of which was listened to. The wording of the amendment was drafted by God knows who and for what purpose, I do not know. It bears no relationship to the recommendations of the citizens' assembly or the committee of the House. What is going on? Why would the Minister not stall this and allow a proper debate?

My colleague Senator Seery Kearney referred to the elasticity of the definition of a family. I agree with her. We should be as elastic as possible to encompass all sorts of families. I also agree with my colleague Senator McGreehan. I do not believe there should be a hierarchy of families. A family is what it says on the tin; it is as simple as that.

Regarding the durability issue, we need a definition. Senators, as we heard, are confused as they try to figure out what is meant by "durable". The Minister needs to put a meaning on that as otherwise, as Senator Higgins suggested, he will drive innocent people with limited resources to the courts to get a definition. This is a change to the Constitution. It is unlikely that change will have to come again for many decades so it must be right first time.

A number of amendments have been proposed. Senator McDowell, for example, has offered an amendment to address the issue of durable, which makes the word perfectly clear. A number of other excellent amendments have been put forward by the Civic Engagement Group. What is the rush? Why are we rushing this forward?

I make a prediction today. Referendums frequently turn out not to be about the question but about the Government that is asking the question. I can tell the Minister already that the level of opposition to what the Government is trying to do in this constitutional amendment is growing. What will happen is €20 million will be wasted on a referendum that nobody I know is asking for, although perhaps the Minister knows who is asking for it, and it is going to fail. Both of the referendums are going to fail. We will talk about the other referendum on care later. They will fail because the Government is not trusted. People are asking what the rush is. What is the Minister afraid of in the debate?

I cannot, in my heart and conscience, support this proposal in its current form. I cannot support the lack of democratic debate which is what we are about in this House. I cannot support a Government that is so disregarding of the opinions of the elected Members of both Houses that it will run through its own question to be put to the people. The people will ask what the Government was afraid of in respect of the Members of the Oireachtas that has caused it to drive this through with such haste. I will vote against this amendment unless I hear something earth-shattering over the next day and a half. I cannot see that coming.