I will speak to amendment No. 62 in a moment but first I will lend my voice to Senator Boyhan's amendment. I meditated for approximately an hour before I came here today because I was getting ready for the furore and the strength with which we would see people advocating for local representatives and I hope that is still to come. When I think of local representatives in those spaces, for me, it is beyond them just being elected representatives at that local level. When we look at communities, often people who run f…

I move amendment No. 62: In page 97, line 13, to delete “prior to” and substitute “in”.

I move amendment No. 66: In page 103, to delete lines 3 to 7 and substitute the following: “(9) In carrying out duties under this section, the Director shall not provide information that might facilitate the commission of an offence, prejudice a criminal investigation or prosecution or jeopardise the safety of any person.”.

I have a few amendments in this grouping. On the last day we were here before Christmas, the Leader of the House stated the Government was within its rights to use time in the way it wanted. I take issue with this because it has come in here today to guillotine, which interferes with our time and right to speak on something.

Before Christmas, Fianna Fáil took up the space completely in terms of dialogue-----

-----and then removed our ability to engage. Senator Malcolm Byrne referred to engagement at the level in question rather than just talking. I am glad Fianna Fáil took the space to engage because, right now, I stand here with amendments I withdrew earlier on so-called Committee Stage on the basis that I could resubmit them on Report Stage, during which the Minister and I were to engage. Now I cannot do that. I do not have that privilege right now. It is wrong for a party in government to make out as if it had to fi…

Amendments Nos. 6 to 9, inclusive, are similar in nature but they feature different wording as compromises. Sometimes you do not realise how personal a situation is until you have to engage with it in the moment. Although you know it is in the background, you are just trying to move through it. Our first amendment changes the phrasing to “including but not limited to Families founded on marriage”. I was about eight years when I first found out my mam and dad were not married. I stand here and here people talk about…

It is, Sharon. There is no point saying "No"; I lived it.

Sorry, it does discriminate.

All laws, at the end of the day, are tested against constitutionality. Do you think that when pensions such as the widow's pension were first considered, marriage was not put in as a criterion based on the fact that we placed so much importance on marriage? We might look at it in less narrow terms now but it mattered then. When it came to my Mam and Dad, she looked after him to the day that he died. She was responsible for him, had to repay the mortgage which she continues to pay, was responsible for converting the…

It does tell them where their place is. I did not interrupt Senator McDowell's hour-long lecture. I felt like I was in a law lecture in UCD or something. However, Senator Keogan has twice intervened in my contribution. I ask her to show respect and to not intervene anymore. The Constitution says that a woman's place is in the home because it seeks to protect it with full force, nearly because it provides that she will be supported to maintain her place within the home. Why does it not refer to a parent's place with…

Yes, it was because they are not married.

Nobody here has said anything-----

I have listened to this whole debate and nobody-----

No, I just think it is misrepresentative. Nobody is here today saying-----

-----it has nothing to do with men.

It has everything to do with men.

I am sorry-----

I am sorry; the Senator is completely misrepresenting-----

Has Senator Keogan been listening to the debate? On a point of order, she is misleading the Chamber.