Mary Flaherty
Question:11 Miss Flaherty asked the Minister for Equality and Law Reform his views on the Commission for the Status of Women's recommendation that Article 41 (2.2º) of Bunreacht na hÉireann should be removed as it is obsolete.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Proposed Deletion of Constitution Provision.
The Commission on the Status of Women recommended the deletion of Article 41.2.2º of the Constitution which it considered was now outmoded. I am sympathetic to the commission's view of this provision and I will consider, at an appropriate time, what action might be taken on this recommendation. In the meantime, I would be interested to receive views from the widest possible range of individuals and organisations including all political parties.
I welcome the Minister's openness in regard to considering this issue. Does he accept the commission's view that this Article was never of any advantage to women in the home and was used to the disadvantage of women at work and that it is now seriously outmoded? Would he accept that Article 41.2.1º on its own, without Article 41.2.2º, sufficiently acknowledges women's role in the home and that Article 41.2.2º confines women to that narrow role alone?
I agree with the thrust of Deputy Flaherty's comment but I would be interested to hear her view on Article 41.2.1º which, it seems to me, also has the wrong emphasis. I find it somewhat surprising that the commission made no comment about that Article. Overall, I agree that the question of a constitutional amendment will have to be considered.
The Minister put a question to me and I would like to have an opportunity to reply. I must remind the Minister that he should not ask Deputies questions. We are here to ask the Minister questions. Why does the Minister continue to say, "at the appropriate time" in relation to every reply he has given? When will be "the appropriate time"? Will the Minister accept that the Constitution in so far as it refers to women refers to them in an extremely offensive way and presumes they are either mothers or wives? Single women have no role in the Irish Constitution. Would the Minister agree that it is his responsibility to look at the Constitution in so far as it relates to women and produce proposals for reform of the Constitution to be put to the people as on the same day as, perhaps, the divorce referendum?
That is a possibility and it may well be considered although I do not think it would be a good idea to have that constitutional referendum at the same time as a divorce referendum as it might possibly detract from it.
The question of Article 41 will be considered at an appropriate time. I would point out to Deputy Harney that the Constitution was in existence this time last year and the year before; it is not a Constitution that was brought in two months ago. It has been there for some time.
Since 1937, I believe.
Many Governments had the opportunity to address it. I hope it will be possible to carry out the necessary consultation process and have this provision dealt with along the lines recommended by the Second Commission.
The commission was set up to make recommendations to Government and, indeed, that is precisely what it has done. How much more consultation does the Minister wish to have in relation to this provision? Would the Minister agree that it is time, as we approach the year 2000, for our Constitution to reflect a more modern Ireland and not the paternalistic approach contained in this provision? We should have a specific equality provision enshrined in our Constitution like Germany, Portugal, Greece, France and the Netherlands?
No one would disagree that the Constitution, where necessary, should have a strong emphasis on equality. I have indicated that I sympathise and agree with the recommendations of the commission in so far as 41.2.2º is concerned. There may be occasion to review this and, possibly, other clauses in the Constitution. Perhaps they could be dealt with together. However, it would not be a good idea to do that in conjunction with the divorce referendum.
Would the Minister agree that aspects of Articles 41 and 42 no longer reflect current problems and allow current difficulties to be adequately addressed? Would he agree that rather than tinkering around piecemeal with aspects of Articles 41 and 42 the two subparagraphs should be redrafted not only to give women equal rights and to protect those rights but also to protect the rights of children? Can the Minister indicate to the House what work, if any, is being undertaken in his Department to examine the manner in which those Articles discriminate against and create difficulties for children in circumstances where their welfare should be protected?
Is the Deputy referring to Articles 41.1 and 2?
Articles 41 and 2.
I cannot put the matter any further. I indicated that as far as 41.2.2º is concerned I am sympathetic to the recommendation. I cannot say that the Department has carried out any work on it but we are of the opinion that it is appropriate to examine it. Further consultation is necessary. The last word on a matter of that nature does not necessarily lie with the second commission alone. Obviously, its views are very important and I am sympathetic with its recommendation on that Article but the procedures will continue. I would be hopeful that before too long it may be possible to have a constitutional referendum on that and any other Articles requiring revision in keeping with the 1990s.
Is the Minister aware that the reason the commission identified Article 41.2 as causing greater difficulty is that the legal terms in which it was written were used to justify active discrimination or various treatments of women in the workplace prior to the introduction of EC law covering that area? Will the Minister accept that that is a major reason to consider that provision? I share the Minister's view that Article 40.1.1º discriminates against men who are homemakers. While it is a positive statement of the value of work in the home it is discriminatory against men.
They are in the minority here at the moment.