Vol. 456 No. 7
1 Miss Harney asked the Taoiseach his views on the recommendation of the Second Commission on the Status of Women that the constitutional definition of the family should be referred to the Law Reform Commission for examination. [13428/95]
There are no proposals at this stage to refer the recommendation to the Law Reform Commission. This proposal, however, falls within the remit of the Constitution Review Group and I assume it will consider it. Having regard to the Law Reform Commission's work programme it is more appropriate that the Constitution Review Group, which has a specific time limit to report, should examine the matter. This matter is one that can also be examined by the Oireachtas Joint Committee on the Family and the proposed official commission on the family. The Government's concern in relation to the family is reflected by the establishment of these three fora in the short period since we came into office.
I thank the Taoiseach for his response. He tabled a similar question in March 1993 to which the then Taoiseach said the Government would as a matter of urgency consider referring the matter to the Law Reform Commission but two years later it has not been so referred. I will not go over the debate we have had on the divorce referendum because this would not be helpful. Does the Taoiseach agree that the definition of the family in the Constitution does not reflect the family circumstances of at least 20 per cent of families in this jurisdiction and that it is unsatisfactory that the Constitution does not recognise families other than those based on marriage?
This matter can be examined by the three fora to which I referred. The implication of the recommendation of the Second Commission on the Status of Women involves a Constitutional amendment. The Deputy is among those who have advised that there are risks involved in such amendments.
Does the Taoiseach accept that recommendation No. 1.9.1 of the report of the Second Commission on the Status of Women does not suggest that the constitutional definition of the family be referred to the Law Reform Commission for examination but that long term partners be included in certain circumstances. It does not propose a sweeping definition of the family.
Deputy Harney's question refers to recommendation No. 1.6.4 of the commission's report that the question of extending the constitutional definition of the family should be referred to the Law Reform Commission for examination. There are many other matters in the same area most of which can be addressed by legislation without constitutional change. However, the matter to which recommendation No. 1.6.4 refers involves a constitutional definition.
I see the difficulties in introducing a change as broad as the one suggested here. However, recommendation 1.9.1 relates to people who genuinely encounter difficulties involving legal matters, pensions, the transfer of property and so on. It would be a great help to many people, particularly the elderly, if these difficulties could be tackled.
I am sure there is a good case for dealing with many of these situations and the Minister for Equality and Law Reform will consider what the Deputy has said. The domestic violence legislation which the Government is progressing will extend protections which do not now exist to non-marital unions.
I am disappointed the Taoiseach is not more forthcoming with regard to his views and passes the buck to the Law Reform Commission or to the committee reviewing the Constitution. Does the Taoiseach agree that many children are born into families which are not based on marriage and is he concerned that the Constitution gives no recognition to these children and families?
The question asked about referring the matter to the Law Reform Commission and I explained that since I became Taoiseach I have been associated with the establishment of three new bodies which have a remit that includes considering this issue in detail. These are the proposed Commission on the Family, the Oireachtas Joint Committee on the Family and the Constitution Review Group. It would be more appropriate for me to allow them consider this highly complicated matter.
There are implications which need to be considered with regard to the position of the marital family if it has no status over and above any other union. There would be implications of a policy and practical nature for marriage in such an approach, which it would be appropriate for these bodies to consider before I express a view on the matter.
