-----who, according to opinion polls, say they would vote “No” if they were asked the question. It destabilises the debate, rather than reinforcing it. I aspire to a united Ireland. I consider myself an Irish republican, like most Members of this House, I presume. However, to simply announce that we are now within touching distance of a united Ireland flies in the face of the fact that a significant majority of people in Northern Ireland have the right to say “No”, and would say “No”, if the matter was put to a vot…

I welcome the Minister of State and thank her for her presence. I associate myself with the remarks about her commitment and determination to do her job, which is universally admired. Senator Clonan made a point that what we are dealing with is the rights of disabled people and the rights of citizens who are disabled to receive care and support from the State. Regarding the proposed amendment to the Constitution, it is to insert a new heading in the fundamental rights section, described as Article 42B. Even though …

For people whose state of affairs has no family dimension, this amendment promises absolutely nothing, yet it is being put into the fundamental rights section of the Constitution. I just wonder what it is doing there. Are we are saying that we are creating rights? If we were going to create rights, we would do what Senator Clonan is suggesting, which is ratify the protocol to the international instrument and create statutory rights for people, not just people who have a family or what remains of their family to sup…

It is not agreed. I just want to point out that this is the third guillotine from this enlightened Government in three days.

Are you suggesting that amendments Nos. 3 to 9, inclusive, should be debated together, Acting Chair?

That is fine. I just want to be clear about that.

These amendments, as the Acting Chair has pointed out, all relate to the same basic matter, which is what precisely is to be inserted into the Constitution, consistent with the overall scheme of the proposed amendment. Yesterday, we had a somewhat fraught discussion in which some people said that their own arrangements were under attack from anybody who opposed the making of this amendment. Nothing could be further from the truth. I fully respect the personal lives and arrangements that everybody in this House has …

If you can avoid being involved in family law and make a few shillings as a barrister, you are well off. I admire family lawyers hugely. Family lawyers will tell you, for instance, that farmers - and I have seen it - with 300 acres have been told that they must set aside 150 acres for their spouse and children for the proper provision of the children. The property of the family and shares in businesses are frequently divided between parties separating or divorcing couples. As I read in family law books, it only hap…

As O'Meara did.

Exactly. That was the intention.

Sa teaghlach.

I do not want to waste too much time. However, first, I have to totally endorse what Senator Mullen has said about the guillotining of the Bill. It is disgraceful that it is being shoehorned through in the manner that it is. What was the hurry? I will tell the House what the hurry was. Some eejit in Government Buildings said there would be a better chance of getting this through if we say it is going to be held on International Women's Day, 8 March. That is what happened. We got stuck with the ridiculous notion tha…

I am speaking to the circumstances in which this amendment is being put through. I have to protest about it. I will be saying in public that the Minister shoved it through for those particular reasons in that particular way and that he curtailed discussion on it. He cannot deny it because everything I have just said is the God's honest truth.

That is why we are sitting here on Tuesday and that is why this commission has demanded that it be in its hands within 48 hours or 24 hours. In any case, I have made my protest. I could have called more votes on the Order of Business, and all the rest of it, to make the same point but that would have chewed up the time that is available. Second, the amendment that we are considering has two functions. First, it amends Article 41.2, and, second, it introduces an entirely new article, Article 42B. Just as Article 41 …

Where is the State's obligation in this? Where is the community's obligation in all of this? Where is the social responsibility for people who have disability, to vindicate their rights? Senator Clonan talked about people with disability, and for him, this will be the only constitutional provision for people with disability. It is being sold on that basis. It is a kind of a mishmash that is being sold on the basis that this is where the State provides, in its fundamental law, for the whole issue of care. It restric…

Calm down.

I am saying that anybody who says that the Constitution did not want women to work or to have occupations or to be able to earn their livelihoods is wrong. It never said anything of the sort. People quote selectively from this document but it has to be read as a whole. It was not the case that Ireland said women should not work. Having said that, I take Senator Higgins's point that there certainly was a general attitude that men were more suited for work and women were better suited for domestic existence. That was…

-----because they were not denominationally Catholic. They were non-denominational crèches for children.

The point I am making is that Ireland was a very different place.

I am just saying that those who actually did something in the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s to assist women to work outside the home while giving them assistance in the care of their infant children ran into cold winds based on the most ridiculous grounds that the crèches were not Catholic but non-denominational and interdenominational. That is all I want to say but I wanted to say those things. The provision we are supposed to be taking out of Article 41.2 was well-intentioned and pro-woman, and was not intended to force…