Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State. Article 41 of the Constitution and Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights share the same understanding of the Family - with a capital "F". Marriage is between men and women, marriage is inextricably linked to family and children and family is the natural and primary unit group in society and therefore demands protection from the State and indeed is guaranteed that protection in the Irish Constitution, Bunreacht na hÉireann. Yet, Ireland decided to vote against a UN resolution calling for the convening of a discussion on "the protection of the family". Instead, Ireland co-authored an amendment that greatly diluted the intended resolution by adding at its end the following quotation, "bearing in mind that in different cultural, political and social systems, various forms of the family exist". The factual statement contained in Ireland's amendment is, no doubt, correct. However, as a legal and political statement, the amendment proposed by Ireland is not coherent either with the Irish Constitution as it stands or with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, UDHR, in terms of the respective understandings of the Constitution and the UDHR of the normative interrelationship between marriage, family and society. Consequently, Ireland's vote against the resolution cannot have been motivated by any concern or respect for either Ireland's own constitutional position on the matter or that of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The question to which I seek an answer is what motivated the Irish decision to vote against this resolution? I do not wish to believe it was any private ideology of the Minister, for whom I have great respect and who is an open-minded and thinking person, or one of his officials. However, I must ask whether some private ideology or some kind of groupthink was at work? I remind the Government that Ireland's presence at the United Nations is the presence of the Irish State, constituted by our basic law. It is not the presence of either of the governing parties or of their party political manifestoes or of their Ministers. I wish to ascertain whether the vote was dictated by an informal European Union voting alliance. If so, that is wrong because the European Union has no legal competence in the area of marriage and family policy. I wish to note that the official Irish statement made at a panel discussion on the protection of the family last Monday also openly departed from the current constitutional position on marriage and the family. It is time that Members began to examine the position that is being taken up by Irish officials in international fora and testing whether they comply, not with the current ideological preferences of the mainstream media or within Government parties, but with the requirements of Irish law and of the Irish basic law in particular. Can I have some objective rationale from the Government for the position it is taking? My point is until we change the Constitution, the Government has no right to depart either from its spirit or its letter. Perhaps an explanation is forthcoming from the Government. While I have great respect personally for the Minister of State, as a Minister from another Department it is unfair to ask him to take an Adjournment matter on this issue. No doubt a response has been prepared for him and while I look forward to hearing it, I would appreciate the opportunity to engage directly with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade on this issue in due course.

Tom Hayes (Tipperary South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Ireland attaches great importance to family-related issues. We recognise the crucial role of parents, care givers and extended families in improving outcomes for children and young people, the important role of families concerning responsibility and care for the elderly, as well as the need to provide support to families to enable them to play these important roles. Families can provide an important framework to assist in the promotion and protection of human rights, in particular those of the family members themselves. This is recognised in the inclusion of the concept of the family in Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948.

For many years, Ireland has supported resolutions on the family at the United Nations, including most recently at the session of the UN Commission for Social Development held in February 2014. Ireland's engagement on these resolutions always has been guided by an understanding that negotiations among UN member states must be inclusive and must take into account the variety of human existence, while also ensuring the universal nature of human rights is respected. Discussions at the UN on the family must take into account this diversity. Past resolutions at the UN have consistently recognised that in different cultural, political, and social systems, various types of family exist, recognising the importance of the family to society while ensuring that our understanding of the family remains broad and inclusive. From the poor grandmother in a village in Africa taking care of her grandchildren after their parents have passed away, to the single father in Dublin looking after his children with the help of extended family and to the more traditional forms of the family, we must ensure that our understanding of the family is broad enough to encompass the diversity of families that exist around the world today.

Throughout the course of negotiations on the resolution on the protection of the family during the 26th session of the UN Human Rights Council in June 2014, EU member states and other democratic countries repeatedly requested the inclusion of language in the draft resolution that would clearly acknowledge the diverse forms of the family. Despite these consistent proposals on behalf of a sizeable number of states, the core group of countries proposing the draft resolution, namely, Bangladesh, China, Egypt, El Salvador, Mauritania, Morocco, Namibia, Qatar, Russia, Sierra Leone, Tunisia and Uganda, refused to include previously agreed and accepted language recognising that various forms of the family exist. It was for this reason that Uruguay, together with Ireland, Chile, and France, tabled an amendment to the draft resolution to recognise this diversity of families, seeking to include agreed language from many previous UN resolutions, which state that in different cultural, political and social systems, various forms of the family exist. However, the Russian Federation, supported by China and Indonesia, called for a "no-action" motion on this amendment to prevent the consideration of the amendment by the council. The "no-action" motion passed with 22 votes in favour, four abstentions and 20 against, meaning that the Council was prevented from debating publicly the importance of recognising diversity in our efforts to protect the family. Ireland profoundly regrets that such a deplorable tactic was used to stifle debate and dialogue. Such "no-action" motions limit the ability of the council to discuss the substance of matters put before it and run contrary to the spirit of the council. With debate on this important aspect of the resolution effectively shut down, the United Kingdom called for a vote on the draft resolution as a whole. With the proponents of the draft resolution insisting on maintaining a narrow and exclusive definition and taking steps to prevent even a debate on its amendment, Ireland, along with all other EU member states that are members of the council, voted against the draft resolution. The resolution passed with 26 votes in favour, six abstentions, and 14 opposed.

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State for being present to give an answer. However, I note both the answer and the somewhat emotive language there as well. I do not know whether it always is Ireland's practice to oppose "no action" motions. It would be interesting to consider that question at another time. However, I believe that Ireland's response does no service to the quality of the original proposal, which reaffirmed that states have primary responsibility to promote and protect the human rights and fundamental freedoms of all human beings. It also is a gratuitous slap at the Irish Constitution, because we have families headed by grandmothers in Ireland and other situations and yet that is compatible with Irish provisions on the family and those families are respected in Ireland. Consequently, Ireland must get back to respecting its own Constitution in international fora and some of the language in this response was quite revealing of a certain disregard. It almost is as though people feel they are off the reservation when they are in international fora and they are not obliged to worry too much about what the Irish Constitution currently provides. This is an issue I will be taking up further, hopefully with the Minister and with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade because this important issue of respect for the Irish constitution by our officials in international fora is being brought to the surface here.

Tom Hayes (Tipperary South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Briefly, I am sorry the Minister is not available as he is otherwise engaged but I have no doubt that he will engage with the Senator. However, I refer to the thrust of what he has being saying.

The family, as we know it, is a central part of what we want to protect in Ireland. We always value what the family stands for and what it does in regard to older people and protecting our children and young people. However, one has to look at the human rights aspect of this. People in different parts of the world have different views on this. In Ireland, the family is a central part of what we stand for and I know the Minister thinks the same. The family is fundamental to Irish society and that is what we want to protect.