I appreciate having a further opportunity to speak in the House on migration, specifically this evening on the issue of international protection. Before speaking to the specifics of the debate, it is important to set out the context. As we are living it, and have lived it over the past three years, it is easy to lose sight of how unprecedented these circumstances have been. Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine, we have seen the largest movement of people across the European Continent since the Second World War. Th…

I thank the Senators for their amendments and for their detailed contributions this afternoon. The majority of the amendments put forward relate to the section of the Bill that deals with the proposals in Article 41.1.1° of the Constitution. I will restate the amendment being proposed by the Government: "The State recognises the Family, whether founded on marriage or on other durable relationships, as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and im…

With respect, they are. The inclusion of the term "durable relationships" builds in a consistent way on those current guardrails. Rather than taking the approach of solely deleting the words on which the family is founded from Article 41.3.1° or using a formulation of "including but not limited to", the approach further reinforces that concept of the family as a fundamental unit group in society. It is one that is founded on strength, stability and commitment. I note that Senator McDowell's amendment seeks to furth…

Respectfully, we disagree with that approach. Importantly, the second element of the Senator's proposal is the restriction of the term "durable relationships" to one that only arises between two people. We have a real concern with that in the situation where there is a one-parent family with more than one child or there is a cohabiting couple with children. We have always been clear that those family relationships have to be protected within what we are trying to propose here. I feel that the outcome of the Senator…

That would fundamentally undermine efforts to protect families where there is a parent and two children

I want to speak on the point about the special protection of marriage, one that remains constitutionally recognised if this amendment is passed. That special protection remains there. It remains the basis for the State to make distinctions in the areas of inheritance and taxation. I would like to quote from what the Chief Justice said yesterday.

I have listened patiently to the Senator and to everybody else and I would expect the same courtesy in return. The Chief Justice stated yesterday "It seems clear that it is not constitutionally impermissible to distinguish per se between marriage and a long-term relationship, not least because the Constitution makes that distinction itself." Contrary to what Senator Mullen said, marriage is not being deconstructed. That was a statement of our superior courts yesterday in terms of the existing distinction that can b…

I thank the Senators for their amendments and for their detailed consideration of the Bill before them today. Before I start, I would like to follow on from comments made by Senator Seery Kearney in terms of recognising Selina Bonnie. She was a colleague of mine and I regularly received a little text every now and then, usually prodding me on where the assisted human reproduction Bill was but also on a range of other issues. As it is an extremely difficult time for Robert, her daughter and all of her family, I am g…

Senator Seery Kearney was right about what we are trying to achieve in each budgetary cycle. Bearing in mind when we were looking to achieve improvements for care, and care is so fundamental to so many of the elements of my Department, in budget 2023 I wanted to do something on the foster care allowance but when we looked at it we did not have the money to go round that year. However, in budget 2024, we were able to advance it. That reflects the clear onus associated with "strive". It will not deliver every single …

I thank the Acting Chair and wish Senators a good afternoon. I am pleased to be here to bring two Bills to the House, which aim to amend our Constitution to reflect the values of a more inclusive Ireland. Our Constitution is the fundamental law of Ireland. It should be a reflection of who we are and the values we hold dear, but right now the text of our Constitution does not reflect our values. It excludes thousands of people from the protection of being named as part of the constitutional family, it describes a ve…

I thank Senators on all sides of the argument for their detailed contributions, in particular those Senators who spoke about the proposals to extend the values of our Constitution to ensure that it reflects families who have previously been excluded from the constitutional family and, indeed, society. In the past, non-marital families, single mothers in particular, were discriminated against and made to feel they were not part of Irish society. Thankfully, much of that has changed. It is important that everyone is …

I value it for reasons that are unique to me.

No. I am sorry. Each person's marriage and each person's decision to get married is one that is unique to him or her. No more than I would ask or question why Senator McDowell decided to make that decision himself-----

That was part of part of my reasoning as well.

Inasmuch as I fought to get access – Senator Mullen had a different argument in terms of that – it is important that we hear from people who, right now, are excluded from the constitutional definition of the family and excluded from the value. Not only does marriage mean something to me, our Constitution means something to me, as I have no doubt it means something to other people in this House as well. We have had significant discussion of the issue of a "durable" relationship and the use of that particular term. W…

If we believe that it is right to broaden out the definition, it is with us now. We have the opportunity, in the context of the referendum and in the context of the wording that is before us to make that change. We are not, as Senator Mullen maintained, seeking to gut the definition of the family. We are seeking to be inclusive and to recognise the value of relationships that we know ourselves are family relationships but right now the people, in those relationships are excluded from constitutional protection.

We are guaranteeing it.

Because the Constitution continues to recognise the importance of marriage.

We are not changing it. We are fundamentally not changing it.

We are continuing to recognise the value of marriage and its special position. In the context of the changes we are making, the State will continually be able to make a distinction between families based on marriage and other families.