Sharon Keogan (Independent) | Oireachtas source

The Minister is very welcome to the House. I note the Electoral Commission states the following on its official website:

The Government has announced its intention to hold two Constitutional Referendums on 8 March, 2024. Legislation to confirm the wording of each referendum is now being considered by both Houses of the Oireachtas.

It is like the Government is ready to press the "send" button from these Houses tomorrow evening and this debate and tomorrow evening's debate are not worth the salt that is going to be talked here over the next two days. Contrary to popular belief, the definition of family within our Constitution matters greatly. Article 41 recognises the family as "the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society ... possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights". This informs many areas of law.

I want to explore what could be meant by "durable". Regardless of how one feels about the issues I am about to discuss, I think we can all agree that there needs to be more clarity. A durable relationship does not have a definition under Irish law, but it does have a definition under EU law. It includes any relationship that has lasted for a substantial period of time. As most of us know, it can take almost ten years for a case to work its way up to the European Court of Human Rights, so I think it is essential that we have a clear definition now. That is very important. Before this legislation leaves the front gates of Leinster House tomorrow evening, every judge in this land needs to know what a durable relationship is. Based on the Minister's speech, it seems the Government's definition is broader than the EU definition.

During my time as a foster parent I have had more than 100 children in my care, although not at the same time obviously. Would they be entitled to contest my will because they might claim to have a durable relationship with me? Would someone who is having an affair be able to contest the will of the person with whom he or she was having an affair? Members might disagree but in the eyes of a judge, it could look very different.

Last week in the Dáil, Deputy McNamara pointed out that throuples could be recognised. In response, the Minister, Deputy O'Gorman, stated that polyamorous unions would not be recognised because they are not a unit within society. Polyamorous marriages are not recognised in Ireland but who is to say that polyamorous relationships could not be subject to constitutional protection? Among some religions, polyamorous units are units in society. There are many sociologists and psychologists who may hold a different view. The fact that people may not like them may not matter once the issue is before the courts. The Minister and I may not think they are a unit in society, but a judge might think differently. That is why it is essential that we provide clarification. The Minister's statements do not count for anything because while the court can refer to the transcripts, it may decide not to pay attention to his remarks. This happened very recently when President Higgins referred the Judicial Appointments Commission Act to the Supreme Court.

Marriage affords a couple a wide array of rights, including a residential right for foreign migrants, and tax benefits. Will this lead to family reunifications? If the Minister tries to deny this, I will remind him that the Minister of State, Deputy Richmond, said a "Yes" vote would aid this process when he was on Virgin Media before Christmas. Would extended families have access to any new benefits? I put on the record that when this topic comes up it is not far-right disinformation but something that has been said by a Minister of State. If the Government does not provide clarity, it may find out within the next five to ten years that it was the one pushing misinformation and disinformation.

Many have said that single parents do not enjoy legal protections, but there are legal precedents provided for these protections. We see in today's case of the widower in Tipperary that the court found there is no difference between a marital and non-marital family in this context because Mr. O'Meara has essentially the same obligations to his children as a widower would have. Today's ruling has perhaps left other questions that might need to be answered, such as whether there must be children for a widower to benefit.

This referendum is not a high priority. There are many more issues facing the country. I hope the Minister can answer the following questions. This is like the nonsense with the hate speech Bill. Why are we not capable of providing a clear definition of anything in this country? The word "durable" is now becoming a lot like the word "hate". Why did the Minister reject the advice of the citizens' assembly? It seems as if he is doing this to satisfy no one. He has not taken anybody's recommendations on board. Why is it important that this referendum be held on International Women's Day? That seems to be a gimmick. I predict that this referendum will be defeated. Would it not be better to give some consideration to the amendments and to avoid a humiliating political defeat in March instead of working on the assumption that the Opposition can never have a good idea? The Minister knows as well as I do that this is irrational. He should let the Members of this House do their job and accept some of the amendments we have tabled for tomorrow. I hope he does the right thing before he sends the wording off to the printers tomorrow evening.