I will let Deputy Mac Lochlainn know when he has used ten minutes. I will give him some latitude.
Second Report of the Convention on the Constitution: Statements (Resumed)
I will only be approximately ten minutes.
The rightful position of women in Irish society is as equals in every way. The 1937 Constitution should be amended to entrench unambiguously women's equality in all aspects of life as part of a comprehensive bill or charter of rights. Constitutional recognition should also be given to the unquestionable economic and social value of unpaid domestic, agricultural and care work. This should be gender neutral, encompassing in particular care of children, the elderly and people with disabilities. It should be complemented by constitutional protections for economic and social rights in a bill or charter of rights, including the equal rights to work and to an adequate standard of living.
Despite the fact that the likes of Mrs. Justice Denham and others have interpreted the real function of Article 41.2 as being to recognise unpaid care work and that it can be construed as gender neutral in a modern context, for avoidance of doubt it would be preferable if this clause was removed in favour of robust and comprehensive equality guarantees for women in the context of a bill or charter of rights. Removal or amendment of the clause is not enough. Women need unambiguous constitutional guarantees to enable them to hold the State accountable under law for all violations of our equal rights, be those through actions or failures to act such as in the case of the Magdalen women, the death of Savita Halappanavar, the one in five women who experiences domestic violence and the one in four women who experiences sexual violence or other sexual abuse in her lifetime.
If unpaid care work is to be constitutionally recognised for its economic and social contribution to the life of the State, it should be done by way of a gender-neutral clause recognising all such work, including by men. This work should no longer be, and is no longer, the exclusive domain of women. The increasing contribution of men should be encouraged and recognised as necessary to women's equality as well as to the overall quality of Irish life.
This latter proposal is in keeping with the recommendations made by the Constitutional Review Group, CRG, and the Oireachtas All-Party Committee on the Constitution, as well as the UN Human Rights Committee, the Irish Human Rights Commission - to bring it into line with Ireland's equality obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and with the Convention to Eliminate All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, respectively - and most of the civil society submissions.
The Constitution should guarantee women's equal representation and equal access to participation in public life, particularly in public leadership and management roles. As one way of implementing this guarantee, our party supports the introduction of gender quotas as a special temporary measure to accelerate the equal - at least 50% - representation of women in the Parliament, the Executive, local councils, the European Parliament, the European Commission, the Judiciary, State boards, semi-State and other statutory public bodies and any other organisation that is in receipt of public funding.
We support such quotas with a view to their earliest possible obsolescence as such equal representation becomes normalised and entrenched. Gender targets could be incrementally phased in, for example, starting on a 30% or 40% basis if necessary, but the ultimate goal is a 50:50 gender balance within short order.
One of the advices to which I have always been drawn is that an economy should serve society, not vice versa. I am mindful of a superb lecture that I attended given by Professor Kathleen Lynch, who champions the cause of equality. I was concerned about quotas simply papering over the cracks, in that they would not make institutions and politics amenable to women. Professor Lynch pointed out that, if we considered the care provided to our elderly, our children and people who are failed by those of us in politics, even if that was not our intent, women were at the heart of those caring situations. If we want to deliver for the elderly and, in particular, the disabled in terms of their rights, their entitlements, education and the caring issues that we somehow fail on, we need more women because they live that life and know that reality. I remember being struck during the lecture that this was why we needed quotas and to include more women as soon as possible. The meeting of such targets must be subject to strict deadlines with appropriate penalties attached.
Regarding constitutional measures, we can support the introduction of 50:50 gender quotas for political party nominations for all elections and ministerial appointments, as well as for judicial nominations and appointments to State and semi-State boards of management and to the boards of other statutory bodies and those in receipt of public funding. Gender quotas for elections should be met by way of a list system. However, if supported by appropriate and sufficient general constitutional guarantees of equality, equal representation and access, such quotas could also be introduced by way of ordinary legislation.
As my party has supported affirmative action measures to achieve equal representation of Northern Nationalists, we believe that consideration should also be given to whether there should be constitutional commitments to increasing diversity and representation in public life through affirmative action measures for under-represented groups, for example, people with disabilities and ethnic minorities such as Travellers and people from Ireland's new communities. The quotas that Sinn Féin has implemented work. The highly capable women of our party are coming out of their backroom roles where they were and still are concentrated. This corroborates the strong evidence from other jurisdictions that experienced rapid increases from low bases and where women's representation is highest.
Claims are made regarding evidence of lower corruption where women's representation is higher. These claims are correct. If true, this could be of significant benefit to society and politics more generally. Increased women's participation in electoral contests could raise the overall quality of representation by widening the candidate pool. This could also help redress a notable problem in politics, leading to improved decision making.
I would also ask that the convention consider, under item No. 9, provisions to diversify political life further and to increase representation of minorities, for example, people with disabilities and ethnic minorities, such as Travellers and the new Irish. Our party has submitted a proposal to the constitutional convention, entitled "A Bill of Rights Amendment", calling for provisions to be more properly contained within a comprehensive and robust bill or charter of rights. This could be considered under the open remit of item No. 9. A bill of rights is an outstanding commitment under the Good Friday Agreement that must be honoured. Perhaps the likes of the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, IHREC, or the Irish Congress of Trade Unions could preside over a debate on how to clarify the rights of citizens in the Constitution for advocates and citizens instead of leaving it to Supreme Court justices to interpret.
I will briefly address some of the initiatives that Sinn Féin has taken to ensure gender equality within our party. Its objective is to reach 50:50 representation of women and men among our membership, leadership and elected representatives. I am proud to say that our party constitution commits us to gender quotas with respect to our internal leadership. We have a policy of incrementally increasing quotas for women candidates at all levels of public office, starting with a target of 30% and increasing to 50% as soon as practicable. To increase the immediate representation of women and the likelihood of re-election through incumbency, we have adopted a policy that all seat co-options should be to women until such time as the 50% target is met.
In the Assembly we have adopted a practice of gender equality in ministerial appointments. We have also increased our female general membership to nearly 30% and will be adopting a plan to pursue further increases in the participation of women in Sinn Féin.
I welcome the outcome of the convention's deliberations on this topic. I am glad that in 2013 we are moving towards removing the archaic and outdated clauses within our Constitution. I wish the convention all the best for the remainder of its time.
Ar an chéad dul síos, ba mhaith liom an coinbhinsún a mholadh de réir an méid oibre atá á dheanamh aige ón tús.
I have been critical of some of the topics chosen, or not chosen, and the length of time allocated for some topics. I still cannot understand why the Seanad question went to a referendum first and did not go to the convention. That would have been the logical, common sense approach, particularly as the convention was discussing electoral reform - a topic we had over two weekends. The convention would have been the ideal place to begin that debate. Notwithstanding all of that, the Constitutional Convention has been working well.
Constitutions have to decide on and reflect the values of society. Overall, our Constitution does contain much that is good. It is democratic and guarantees freedom, equality and justice for citizens. It may not always have been interpreted that way, however, for the good of all citizens. Some citizens have been badly served by the Constitution, including homosexuals and people with mental health issues. I am conscious that today is world mental health day and there are people with mental health issues in our society whose rights are not respected.
Overall, however, we have been fortunate that the Constitution did build on the Proclamation of 1916 to which equality was central. Deputy Catherine Murphy and I are the two Independent Deputies on the convention and we have a 100% attendance record. Continuity and consistency in attendance is important.
We cannot discuss the convention without acknowledging the work of the officials, including the chairman and other staff, before, during and after it. I acknowledge in particular their work with the wording of the ballot papers, which has been problematic. The discussions have been open and frank but I still think the plenaries are top heavy with political contributions. The round-table discussions, however, do ensure that everyone has a voice. The feedback signifies that everyone feels their view is respected and heeded, and that no one dominates the round-table discussions.
The February session of the convention was about amending the clause on the role of women in the home, encouraging their greater participation in public life and increasing their participation in politics. Were changes to the Constitution necessary in this regard? Article 40.1 suggests gender equality because it states: "All citizens shall, as human persons, be held equal before the law."
Article 16.1.1o states: "Every citizen without distinction of sex who has reached the age of twenty-one years, and who is not placed under disability or incapacity by this Constitution or by law, shall be eligible for membership of Dáil Éireann." There is a general consensus about gender equality, but is that enough? There is also the recognition of a special role for the family in Article 41.1.1o, which refers to the family as "the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society". Article 41.1.2o refers to the family as "the necessary basis of social order and as indispensable to the welfare of the Nation and the State".
Article 41.2.1o states: "In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved." Article 41.2.2o states: "The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home." I am not too sure why that Article has not been challenged, particularly in times of austerity.
All the papers presented at the convention were interesting but one in particular, by Professor Gerry Whyte from the Trinity College School of Law, gave examples where Article 41 featured in litigation in regard to gender discrimination and recognising work done in the home. In some cases the article was used to support preferential treatment for deserted wives and not to justify the exemption of women from jury service. It was not interpreted as allowing discrimination against widowers concerning their eligibility to adopt.
I liked Chief Justice Denham's observation when she said that Article 41.2 does not assign women to a domestic role, but recognises the significant role played by wives and mothers in the home. That does not mean to exclude them from other activities, but it is really about recognising that the work women do in the home is of immense benefit to society.
Mr. Justice Murray presented an interesting paper on this article which covered fathers. He sees that the Constitution implicitly recognises, similarly, the value of a man's contribution in the home as a parent. One wonders therefore if there is a need for change. There have been various reports, some of which have suggested deleting Article 41.2. Subsequent reports called for modification, while another report sought the Constitution to recognise the significant contribution of both males and females caring for children and elderly relatives. Some wanted to retain Article 41.2 but in a revised, gender-neutral form.
All of that debate was going on before the Constitutional Convention, and it continued at the convention. There is no doubt that the sections on women and the family do come from an older traditional view of the family - the male and female married with children. However, we know that Ireland has seen a massive change in terms of the family. We have different relationships now, including lone parents, grandparents in loco parentis, and same-sex partner families. Another dynamic is the changing nature of society with stay-at-home fathers and those who care for dependants, other than children, in the home. That also formed part of the discussions at the convention.
We know what the convention came up with last February. One point that emerged is that changes concerning women must also take account of changes to the definition of the family. Some 88% were against leaving the relevant article as it is. If it were to be changed, 88% wanted to amend or modify it. The vast majority, 98%, wanted to make it gender neutral and acknowledge other carers in the home. There was a narrower margin for including carers beyond the home. We know of the debate about the wording including "endeavour to support" and "provide a reasonable level of support", but on average the convention as a whole favoured a reasonable level of State support.
There were interesting results on the aspect of increasing women's participation in politics. The main one that stood out for me was that the majority favoured non-constitutional methods and routes in order to increase participation by women in politics. They sought Government action but I do not really believe that Article 41.2 has prevented me, or any other woman, from doing whatever we wanted to do in terms of a career or becoming involved in public life and politics.
Perhaps adding "she" to the language of the Constitution would be a start. However, there are certainly reasons, which have nothing to do with the Constitution, why more women are not involved in public life and politics. We know that girls tend to do better than boys in State examinations. We also know that women are the heart and lifeblood of communities. Women are predominantly involved in so many civil society groups and voluntary organisations. Why do women not progress into more senior levels of public life? Sometimes women would see it as regression, rather than progression.
We have had two female Presidents but not one female Taoiseach. The stark statistic is that 15% of Dáil candidates are women and 15% of Deputies are women. In the local elections the figure is 16%, which is not much better. The Dáil has never been less than 85% male, which might account for certain dysfunctional aspects and the length of time it takes to do things. The Westminster Parliament has seen the rate of participation by women increase from 9% to 22% and the French from 11% to 27%. I acknowledge that in the constituency of Dublin Central we have the perfect gender balance: two men and two women Deputies.
The suggestions from the Constitutional Convention are a way forward but in themselves will not bring about a greater participation of women in public and political life. Many reports have been done on the difficulties involved and child care is seen as being one. There are long unsocial hours involved in being a Deputy but I cannot understand why this is only related to women who are mothers and not to men who fathers. It is downgrading men and seems to imply that they have no role in rearing their children.
Research tells us that the greater the participation by women in parliament the lower the level of corruption. More women means a more consensual style of politics, rather than the current confrontational style. We know that parliament would be more consultative. The evidence is that women conduct politics in a more open and transparent way.
I am on record as being against quotas for women, while I accept that politics would be much better with more women involved. Women are significantly under represented but I do not see quotas as the way forward because then we would also have to examine having quotas for various age groups, socio-economic groups, certain jobs and professions, and our new communities who are not represented.
A mind-shift is required, particularly on the part of political parties, because there is no opposition to women standing as Independents.
We know that currently most Deputies are male and that incumbents have a higher re-election rate. Will the parties sacrifice seats to give more woman an opportunity? While quotas were a factor in the increase in Rwanda, the increase in the number of women elected in the Scandinavian countries predated the introduction of quotas.
Amendment of the Constitution is only one step, although a significant one. I acknowledge the value of the work of the Constitutional Convention on this matter. However, it is important account is taken of the sections on the family. One of the groups, Women for Election, suggested a wording which the Minister might consider, namely, "That the State shall endeavour by appropriate means to promote equality in politics."
I acknowledge the commitments given by the Minister in his opening speech. The Constitutional Convention, which is to complete its work shortly, will discuss the issue of blasphemy at its November meeting. Consideration will then be given in the new year to the establishment of a further convention and possible topics for discussion. In this regard, many submissions and suggestions have already been received. I believe another Constitutional Convention should not be established until the issues, reports and recommendations of the current convention have been followed through in a significant and meaningful way.
I acknowledge what the Minister said earlier but I believe we must first deal with the issues addressed by the current Constitutional Convention before establishing another one.
I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on the second report of the Constitutional Convention on the role of women in the home, a matter of great importance to me and the vast majority of women throughout the country.
I welcome the recommendations of the Constitutional Convention. I propose in my contribution to focus on the proposed amendment of Article 41.2o on the role of women in the home to include a gender neutral reference. Article 41.2.1o states: "In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved." Article 41.2.2o states: "The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home." The specific reference in Article 41.2.2o to the role of women in the home and to mothers' duties in the home has given rise to great criticism and opposition throughout the country. As a mother who has worked within and outside the home, I, too, am critical of it. I have the utmost respect for women who work full-time in the home. Similarly, I have the utmost respect for women who work full-time outside the home. I do not, however, respect the manner in which this Article pigeonholes women into one particular role, one that is dependant on A.N. Other. Gender roles have changed greatly in contemporary Ireland.
Article 41.2.2o enforces a sexist or stereotypical view of women. It does not give recognition to modern 21st century families or recognise that caring in the home is increasingly shared by mothers, fathers, grandparents and others. As aptly stated by Sheryl Sandberg, a leading advocate for the promotion of more women in the workplace, most people assume that women are responsible for households and child care. Most couples, not all, operate this way. This fundamental assumption holds women back. I would like to read into the record some significant statistics which illustrate how many women are engaging in labour outside the home. Currently, 47% or 975,000, people in employment are female, more than half of whom have children. Women who engage in labour outside the home should not be defined as neglecting their duties in the home. It is very unfair and unjust to place such a societal stigma on working women. Furthermore, Article 41.2.2o greatly reflects the influence of the Catholic social teaching of 1937. The contemporary Ireland of 2013 has changed utterly since then. An amended Article 41.2.2o should be reflective of an inclusive society, regardless of religion or gender.
This brings me to the recommendation that any change to Article 41.2.2o should be gender neutral and should refer to carers in the home and beyond it. I strongly welcome this recommendation. Care is a public good. It supports the maintenance of a cohesive society and the production of a healthy well-functioning citizenry and workers. As Joan Tronto reminds us, care is not a parochial concern of women, a type of secondary moral question or the work of the least well off in society rather it is a central concern of human life. Although research indicates that 61% of carers are women and that 86% of child care is provided by women, we should not be that narrow-minded as to allow our Constitution, a document that will guide generations to come, to exclusively define care as a female role.
While the convention narrowly voted against a constitutional provision enhancing the participation of women in public life and politics, I strongly support its call to the Government to do more to enhance participation. Ireland currently ranks 25th among the 27 EU countries in terms of female representation. Currently, only 26 of our 166 elected representatives are female. On a global scale, Ireland ranks 89th in terms of female political representation, which is lower than Iraq and Afghanistan. Why, when women make up 50% of the population, should we allow decisions, some of which pertain directly and only to women, to be made by a group that is 84% male?
I welcome the gender quotas introduced by the Government which require the candidate selection process to field at least 30% female candidates in elections. This is a good start. I encourage all women to take on the role in politics that rightly belongs to them. Politics is no longer a man's game. I welcome the Minister's response to the report and look forward to progressing its recommendations.
Last Friday we witnessed the deep respect the Irish people have for the fundamental law of the land, the Irish Constitution. It was a shot across the bows of any cynical personal constitutional crusade and a timely reminder that it is the people who ultimately decide the rules by which we are governed. I hope that the Government does not draw the wrong lesson from the Seanad abolition debacle. It was a vote for real reform, not the status quo. There is a pressing and urgent demand for meaningful political reform in this country. Last week's vote reflected the fact that people want more than mere cosmetic tinkering and cynical stunts.
The economic crisis has exposed some of the profound institutional weaknesses in how we do politics in this country. However, the crisis also allows us an opportunity to focus on these problems, set out a new vision and improve matters. We must look at this juncture in history as an opportunity to set right the ship of State for future generations. Today's topic reflects one of the pressing areas that we need to address if we are to build a political system fit for purpose in 21st century Ireland. The chronic under-representation of women in public life and archaic language of the Constitution is a serious barrier to the kind of society we hope to achieve in a modern republic.
The work of the Constitutional Convention is an important move towards addressing these issues.
To first address the role of the woman in the home, the gender specific language employed by the Constitution and its articles prescribing that a woman's role is in the home belong to a separate time and different Ireland. While it is easy now to be critical of outdated thinking, to do so is to fall into the old trap of reading history backwards. The past is a foreign country and we should be wary of projecting our values on it in too harsh a manner. The Constitution is a delicate balance of modern needs, tradition and precedents. The language in Article 41 no longer reflects such a balance as it fails to represent a modern Ireland. Against this backdrop, it must be amended.
As is captured in the essence of Article 41, the care provided in the home is the backbone of society. However, the provision of care and an active role in the home is not confined solely to women. I welcome steps to ensure the article will reflect gender neutral language and maintain the recognition of the role of a caring home as the invaluable basis for the common good. The Fianna Fáil Party concurs with the Constitutional Convention's findings in this regard and the viewpoint previously expressed by the Constitution Review Group report of 1996 that the Constitution should recognise the significant contribution made to society by the many people who care for children, elderly relatives and others in their homes. Amending Article 41 will reflect the deep value care gives to society, while upholding the founding values of the Republic, as echoed from the GPO when the Proclamation gave equal recognition to Irish men and women.
To address the second issue of encouraging greater female participation in public life, I am all too aware that my party failed to have any female Deputies elected in the previous election. It is worth reviewing the stark facts surrounding the gaping chasm in gender representation at the heart of Irish politics. Women account for only 15% of Dáil Deputies. While this is the best level of female representation in the history of the House, it marks an increase of only 5% in 35 years. Of our 43 constituencies, 21 did not elect a single female Deputy in 2011, largely as a result of a lack of female candidates on the ballot paper. Despite the use of multi-member constituencies, almost half of Irish women do not have a female Deputy in their constituency. Since the foundation of the State, the Dáil has never been less than 85% male. Progress was made between 1977 and 1992 when the percentage of female Deputies increased from 4% to 12%.
At local level, the story is similar, with women making up only 16% of elected local authority representatives, which represents an increase of just 1% in ten years. This is despite women comprising approximately one third of the membership of the main political parties. The National Women's Council estimates that at the current pace, it will take 370 years to achieve gender balance in Irish politics. Ireland has one of the worst rates of gender balance in its political institutions in the democratic world. We rank 23rd out of the 27 European Union countries and 78th in the world in terms of female representation in the lower house of parliament. The facts are striking and an indictment of our failure to achieve a representative democracy worthy of the name.
Before discussing constitutional change, it would be remiss of us to exclude the need for soft measures to enhance female participation levels. Tackling the issues of child care, cash, confidence, culture and candidate selection procedures, the so-called "five Cs" which create major barriers to female participation in politics, will involve coherent Government action across a number of areas. Constitutional change is only one part of a broader process that must involve family friendly working hours, improved child care provision and a cultural shift within political parties. Recognising our own failings, the Fianna Fáil Party launched a detailed policy document outlining proposals to confront the problem of gender equality within the party. The party system needs to recognise the scale and depth of the problem and outline actions to tackle it.
Hard legislative and constitutional measures such as gender quotas must strike a balance between democratic choice and directly incentivising greater levels of female engagement. While the linking of party funding to candidate levels was a welcome step in this direction, a direct constitutional article on gender quotas and Government action would not be appropriate. We welcome the Constitutional Convention's recommendation that gender equality be explicitly recognised in Article 40 of the Constitution.
It is important to bear in mind that advancing women's participation in politics requires a blend of soft cultural and hard legislative action. The Constitution should sustain this with a clear expression of our commitment to real gender equality.
I thank the participants in the Constitutional Convention for their thoughtful contribution over a range of topics to date. Their work and thoughtful reflections have been a major addition to the national discourse on reform. I hope the Government, in light of last Friday's rejection of the proposal to abolish the Seanad, will take the leash off the convention and allow it to discuss a wide range of topics. A constrained convention will not live up to its potential or the pressing need for deep, sustained and real political reform. I look forward to the Government engaging with these issues and taking action on them in the future.
I commend the Convention on the Constitution on its hard work since it first met in December 2012. Thus far, the convention has dealt with a wide range of issues under the careful guidance of Mr. Tom Arnold and has made some interesting recommendations for the Oireachtas to consider. I also commend the many individuals, organisations and community groups who made well thought out submissions to the convention. It is great to see such enthusiastic engagement with the convention and its work.
The purpose of this debate is to discuss the recommendation by the convention to amend Article 41.2 of the Constitution, which provides that "the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved". It further provides that "the State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home". At its meeting on this issue in February last, 88% of members of the convention voted in favour of modifying rather than deleting Article 41.
The Constitutional Convention made clear proposals for change, with 98% of members voting in favour of making the article gender neutral and including other carers other in the home, while 62% voted in favour of changing the article to include carers beyond the home. As is recognised in the excellent submission of the Constitutional Convention, women have traditionally taken responsibility as the principal carer in the home. This role has traditionally been undervalued by the State and society. My mother spent much of her life working in the home, as did most women of her generation. This was the norm, one which was enshrined in the Constitution. Since then, however, the norm has been turned on its head as many women sought to continue their careers after having children. Nowadays, it is often more beneficial to a family to have a husband or partner stay at home and act as carer. These changes have accelerated in the economic downturn as many men who were previously the main breadwinners, including many who had worked in the construction industry, find themselves earning less than their wives due to cuts in payments or hours or without an income as a result of job losses.
As a society, we have been trying to find our feet since the changes brought about by the economic crash. The proposal to change Article 41.2 to make it gender neutral reflects the fact that men are the main carers in many homes.
In our efforts to move with the times, however, we must not forget the enormously valuable contribution made to society by women through their work in the home over generations. These women and their work which can be valued as an economic contribution to the State, has been forgotten by the State. When the time comes for them to retire, many find themselves entitled only to a non-contributory pension despite having worked all their lives and made this economic contribution to the State. Those women have lost out financially because of their commitment to the family and to society.
I am pleased the proposed changes to the Constitution continue to protect the rights of mothers to work in the home and to be the principal carer if they wish. By making it gender-neutral it also reflects the way women are now continuing their careers outside of the home after having children. Women who wish to do this must be supported by the State. One area in which this is very important and relevant to us here is in politics. I also commend the convention on taking up this issue. Even though it did not recommend a change to the Constitution to place an obligation on the State to encourage women's participation in politics, there is a wish that this be done. The Government has taken the lead by introducing quotas. It is important to have more women in politics. Other speakers have already covered what I was going to say. Women in politics bring a balance and a sense of calm in times of despair.
The other very valuable aspect of the recommended change by the Convention on the Constitution is the way it will recognise the value of care in the wider sense to Irish society. This includes care of people with disabilities. It also, of course, includes care of elderly relatives undertaken by men and women. For example, I can speak of my two brothers. In the last few months of her life, my mother was supported and cared for by my two brothers - a care that was unconditional love. It allowed us to keep her at home and continue to mind her in a familiar, safe and secure environment, which is what she always wanted.
I was pleased to hear the Minister commit to working through the wording on gender quality and to further enhance the role of women in society in response to the work of the Convention on the Constitution. I support the work of the convention and the work that it is doing on behalf of all citizens of the State. I wish it well as it completes its work over the coming months. I wish the Minister well in ensuring that any proposed changes to the Constitution will be supported by the Government.
I have had the pleasure of being one of the two nominees from the Technical Group, along with Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan, to the Convention on the Constitution. Both of us have been fortunate in being able to attend all the sessions so far, which is very helpful in getting a feel for, in particular, the citizen members. I made it my business to ask a number of the citizen members how they felt the convention was going and what they wanted to get out of it. They put in considerable time reading the material beforehand and taking the weekend to have an honest deliberation. The one thing they wanted was for note to be taken of the recommendations. They wanted it to mean something and result in referenda being put to the people on some if not all of the recommendations. There is a very important message in that. If there is to be a further successful constitutional convention we need to be able to show not just that it was a good method of deliberation on issues, but that there was an actual result in terms of putting carefully considered and thought out proposals to the people.
When I first looked at the list of issues we were to consider, I wondered why we were even considering this one. For my entire adult life I have felt it was an inappropriate provision in the Constitution because it shows a dependant-type approach to one gender. I felt there were meatier issues we could consider. I felt that if this was put to the people it was something that they would feel needed to be changed. However, it opened up the debate on the role of care, irrespective of the gender of the care-giver. Recognising that is valuable in itself.
Most of us feel that people should have the choice to go to work and in particular when they have very young children they should have the choice to stay at home. This means that Government policy must more or less assist, regardless of whether the care-giver is male or female. The workforce now contains a very high number of women. An issue that constantly comes up is that of affordable child care. It will not go away if women are going to continue to play a full and active part in the workforce. They are very often required to work because many young families have big mortgages making it a necessity for both parties in a relationship to work. We also have a large number of lone parents. There is considerable evidence that those parenting alone suffer poverty.
Sweden has made a consistent effort to encourage women to participate in politics. While it is laudable to change how politics is funded to encourage women into active politics, it is important that we do it at local government level, which is an important entry route. I support quotas because I believe that nothing else will work. When people talk about quotas for women, it is almost invariably said that they are lesser candidates because they have been selected by way of a quota. It is interesting that we are prepared to take 85% male representation and if we consider that there is equal intelligence between the genders it means that we are actually losing out on a contribution that could be made, even from the point of view of the level of intelligence, life experiences and different ways of looking at things.
We are not just discussing representative politics, but also how we can involve more women in decision making. The Government made a commitment that it expected to have 40% of women on State boards. I tabled a series of parliamentary questions on the matter and Mary Regan published an article in the Irish Examiner with a breakdown by Department. That number has been exceeded in Departments like the Departments of Health, and Children and Youth Affairs, or in areas with boards related to those Departments.
However, there is underperformance in respect of the targets in places like the Department of Finance and the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, and there is a direct relationship with the outcomes for the Department of Health and the Department of Children and Youth Affairs. It is vital we start to see that gap close, especially in the Department of Finance and the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, because they have a direct bearing on the quality of the provision that can be made from the other Departments.
At the time the 1937 Constitution was framed, the backdrop was different. Many of its provisions are rather progressive when one considers what was happening in Europe at the time. I had thought that most of the provisions around the family had been more or less insisted on by the Roman Catholic Church or the hierarchy at least. Only when I participated in the Commission on the Family some years ago did I acquire a fuller understanding of how what was happening elsewhere in Europe served as a backdrop to how the Constitution was framed, and I was rather surprised by that.
I return to the point I made at the beginning. Before we embark on another constitutional convention or an expansion of this convention, it is important to finish the work of this one and ensure it results in the appropriate questions being put to the people in order that we make the changes that have been recommended.
I thank the Acting Chairman for the offer of extra time. I might take a little of it but I noticed the Minister was a little touchy yesterday during the criminal justice debate and I have no wish to delay him from his lunch. Therefore, I will try to be as brief as I can.
While listening to the debate from my office earlier, I heard a good deal of commentary from the Government benches which I can only describe as patronising claptrap. I am unsure how many women from Darndale or Moyross are on the Constitutional Convention but I imagine not too many. There is a whopping discrepancy between the lofty aspirations we are hearing from the Government benches and the reality for women as a result of the consistent cutbacks the Government has embarked upon. We have seen evidence presented in study after study showing that the brunt of the Government's cutbacks have fallen on the shoulders of women. How can women possibly participate in public life when they bear the burden of the most expensive child care in Europe, when they work in a scenario whereby their wages are still less than 80% of those of men, when older women are more at risk of poverty than older men and so on? I will not bore the Deputies with the details; the information has been well-flagged and highlighted. We must have a sense of proportion and consider this in reality.
There is a huge gulf between equality and reality when the Government is pursuing a policy of austerity that disproportionately affects women and that, in fact, exacerbates inequality. As long as these issues are not tackled, we can have all the aspiration we like but it will make no difference. Like other Deputies, I imagine, I receive calls every week from women who cannot get rented accommodation because landlords will not take rent allowance, from women whose partners have left, perhaps, who are struggling with a mortgage they cannot pay and who have to deal with the children and all the other pressures that come to bear. First and foremost, we must put the issue in that context.
Let us consider Article 41.1.1º and Article 41.1.2º. I believe these should be removed and that is what we should be looking at. I note the comments made by the Constitutional Convention linking them to the issues of carers and so on, but that is being somewhat politically correct or trying making it gender-neutral. That is a separate issue. Let us be clear: the intention of Article 41.1.1º and Article 41.1.2º was to limit the role of women and mothers in society. That is what they were designed for. They should never have been included in the first place and we should take this opportunity to get rid of them.
I reject the idea that Article 41 reflected a more conservative time. I simply do not believe that is true. We have seen the commemorations under way at the moment for the Lock-out and the phenomenal role played by women workers, in particular laundry workers, and so on in the Lock-out and the struggle for independence. It is clear that women played a very real part in the struggle. In 1922, a great many rights for women were enshrined in the Constitution. We know that Countess Markievicz was one of the first female Ministers anywhere in the world. It was not the case that women fought for their rights, which of course they did, but that there was an unusual situation in Ireland whereby many of the rights which women had in the early years of the State were subsequently rolled back on and taken away by successive Government legislation. This is evident from measures such as married women being banned from working as teachers, that ban being expanded into the Civil Service subsequently, the prohibition on women serving on juries and the situation whereby the Minister had the power to restrict the number of women working in certain industries and so on. That was a conscious process by the State that culminated in the Constitution of 1937, which firmly put women in the home. At the time, the newspapers reported that the reason for this was the Government of the day wanted to ensure women would not be wrenched from the bosom of their families, from their cherished household duties and from the preparation of their husbands' dinners. Clearly that was written by people who never had to wash clothes in cold water, try to keep a tenement clean or keep their children fed when there was no money to go around. That view was rooted in an ideology which did not see women as citizens but was, in part, more about keeping women out of public life.
True equality means the recognition of difference. Women are clearly different from men, most particularly in the area of reproduction and so on. Therefore, supporting children and mothers is a key road to follow in dealing with equality. While dealing with these issues economically is the most positive step forward, as a signal and an ideological statement, the removal of these provisions from the Constitution would be a far greater step in the direction of egalitarianism, recognising people as citizens and recognising that the nature of the family and home life has changed forever. We should support people to enable them to be economically independent and to live the lives they choose in whatever family formation best suits their needs.
I thank everyone who has contributed to this very interesting debate, for the contributions made, for some of the constructive suggestions that have come forth and for what, I believe, has been an important debate. I am grateful to have this opportunity on behalf of the Government to respond to the Second Report of the Convention on the Constitution. I stated at the start and I repeat now my thanks to all those participating in the convention, including the members of the public and the political members, for their work and participation, all those providing background support, and, of course, the chairman, Tom Arnold, who did such a good job.
I have listened with interest to the various contributions. As I said at the start of the debate, the Government welcomes the convention's report. We continue to be encouraged by the wholehearted engagement of the participants in the process. I note Deputy Ó Feargháil mentioned his party's original doubts and cynicism surrounding the value of the convention. I am pleased that he now recognises it is playing an important role and those participating in it and giving of their time are making valuable contributions. All the Deputies who spoke in the debate have acknowledged the sterling work done by the Constitutional Convention to date. It is particularly important to have citizens or individuals not elected to the Parliament and who are not part of some specialised elite working and engaging constructively with parliamentarians in the exercise of parliamentary democracy. All too frequently, those who contribute to the work of committees in the Houses and whose contributions are very welcome come from one stratum of society.
They are perceived as specialists in their areas and while their levels of expertise are of huge value, people who do not have recognised specialties are not given an opportunity to contribute. The convention has provided such an opportunity and I believe its model could provide a useful blueprint for bringing about greater public participation in public decision-making in the future.
Many Deputies made valid suggestions and offered ideas, which will contribute further to the debate on the convention's recommendations on advancing the role of women in public and political life. I invite all those who made contributions today, including the political parties represented in this House on the Opposition side, individual Deputies, Independent Members and Deputies right across the board, to contribute to the process in which the Government is engaged. If there are specific proposals they wish to make as to the content of an article that might implement the convention's views or which might contribute towards the deliberations on the appropriate replacement for Article 41.2, I would invite such a contribution. Moreover, my Department and the committee that is being established would greatly welcome that.
In inviting such contributions, however, I ask Members to have regard to the financial realities of the State. When eliminating an article or, rather, when putting to the people a proposal for the removal of an article that, as I stated earlier, clearly has proven to be of no benefit to women, that sought to label women as primarily having a role solely in the home and which was part of a philosophy that gave birth to the marriage bar on women working in the public service, consideration must be given to how to provide something that is appropriate, gender neutral and non-discriminatory but which also does not impose costs on the State and on taxpayers that the State cannot afford at present.
If the article is to be replaced by something appropriate, it must be replaced by a proposal that will receive substantial support by referendum from the people. This is the challenge with which the Government is confronted, in that it has from the convention a recommendation of change but not the proposal as to what might be the wording with regard to that change. There is a diversity of ideas in this area. Much of the work that has been done in this area has focused on the equality between men and women in the home, as opposed to one or other having a special role. While there have been suggestions about recognising the special role of parents in the home, from my recollection and from my academic writings in this area in years past, there has not been a proposal for a provision that would incorporate in full what is recommended and suggested by the convention in effectively extending it not simply to men and women in equality but to all carers, as well as to carers outside the home who provide caring. The issue of how that could be done, how meaningful it would be and what financial implications it might have is a matter of great complexity.
The terms of reference given to the convention indicated it effectively was asked to consider the current article and what change might be made to it. It was not part of the convention's remit expressly to propose that it simply be removed from the Constitution, which is another possibility, albeit not a proposal that has been made to the Government. However, as someone who has worked over the years in the areas of constitutional law and family law, I note there is an interesting legal issue surrounding whether its simple removal is another objective, bearing in mind the provisions to ensure equality between men and women in Article 40 of the Constitution. Consequently, there are very interesting and difficult legal issues in giving effect to a proposal for change and for removal of a provision that reflects a philosophy of the 1930s, which imbued Irish society for the following decades. Many years ago, I wrote about this particular article and personally I always have regarded it as inappropriate, as not in the interests of women and as effectively consigning women solely to a role in the home without actually ensuring any financial protections for women in that role. Consequently, while I am pleased the Government has the recommendation from the convention, it is so broad that there are substantial complex issues to be addressed as to how to proceed on foot of that recommendation. In this context, I repeat my invitation to go beyond today's debate to Members of the House who might give further consideration to this in the coming months and to what an appropriate alternative might be to the content of the current Constitution.
It is my objective to ensure that both the House and the Government approach the convention's recommendations with a positive mindset. I believe Deputy Catherine Murphy stated - she will correct me if I am wrong - that before the convention is asked to do any further work, the Government should get on with implementing or responding appropriately to recommendations made by the convention. I believe any fair-minded person who considered the manner in which the Government has approached the first and second reports would regard it as having treated the reports with great seriousness and as advancing matters along the road proposed by the convention. The Government also will regard all further reports with seriousness. It never was an objective to create a situation in which a group of people would meet over weekends to do serious work and to engage in serious deliberations and for the Government then simply to ignore what they had to say and to consign their reports to gather dust on shelves. One reason there was a self-imposed obligation by the Government to respond to reports within a specific time in this House was to ensure this did not and could not occur, and I can give every assurance it will not occur.
In the context of some references made to the role of women in politics, unlike Deputy Ó Fearghaíl who spoke in a positive manner, Deputy Troy could not resist the temptation to give the Government side a kick, arising out of the previous referendum held over the weekend. In the context of that referendum, I note the Government fulfilled its commitment to put the issue to the people. The people made a decision and that decision is respected. In the context of any referendum that may be held arising out of the different proposals coming from the convention, it will be a question of a proposal being put to the people, who will make their decision. However, in the context of any proposals that derive from the recommendations of the convention, it is important that they be given time to be developed where there has not been a specific proposal. Even where a specific constitutional article has been proposed, or variants of particular articles, as has already arisen in one report, there will be a need to give it careful consideration to ensure it will fulfil the objectives intended, that it will be understood by the people in a referendum and that the people be given an adequate opportunity to understand what is being proposed and to debate it.
I am proud that the parties in government are meeting their obligations and promises in this area. Personally, as someone who has favoured constitutional reform in a number of areas, I regard the work of the convention as very exciting. It is opening up doors that in some areas have been closed and is prioritising some issues, at the request of the Government, that often get put on the back-burner because other issues are perceived to be more urgent. I reiterate that I very much welcome what is being done in this area.
In the context of references to the impetus to increase women's participation in politics, it is fair to state that all parties and all party leaders made a significant contribution to the debate that took place at the conference organised last year by the Minister of State, Deputy Kathleen Lynch.
I have already outlined many of the positive actions, and I will not repeat them, taken by the Government to foster gender equality since taking office two and half years ago. I never expect Deputy Clare Daly to acknowledge anything positive done or achieved by Government. It is rather unfortunate that she was the only Member of this House who descended simply to abusing some of those who contributed to today's debate. I reject, in its entirety, her inappropriate comment that Members on this side of the House, in their contributions to this debate, were engaged in patronising claptrap. This is an issue we take seriously. It would be good if when making her contribution in this House she could restrain herself, on occasion, from engaging in unnecessary personal abuse which only devalues the substance of what else she has to say.
I referred previously to our EU Presidency conference on the topic of women in the workforce at which the OECD argued strongly that all EU member states, including Ireland, need to increase female labour market participation to stimulate economic growth. EU Employment Commissioner Andor also stressed the importance of addressing gender equality at the same conference and for much the same reasons. This is something that I and the Government fully support and recognise. The further advancement of women in the workforce is not an issue that can be dealt with in isolation. It is part and parcel of the focus of Government to get people back to work. We have more than 400,000 unemployed in this country and while the number unemployed is reducing it is still substantial. Greater female participation in the workforce is inextricably connected with the growth of jobs in this country and what the Government can do to stimulate jobs being created by the private sector and to ensure the barriers that may exist for women in the workforce are addressed.
I want to acknowledge what was said about certain local government matters. I personally find it extraordinary that so few women are in top positions in the administration side of local government. The overwhelming majority of county managers are men and I do not know the reason for that. In the context of the huge numbers of women who are involved in the administration of local government in the different sections of local authorities across this country, I do not know the reason there is this male dominance. In terms of the equality side of my brief, that is an issue on which I will have a conversation with my colleague, Deputy Phil Hogan, the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, who I know would have a concern in this respect. That is a stark anomaly. I do not know if it is to do with the system used to make appointments in the context of the interview boards that are formulated but it is particularly odd at this stage that this remains the position. It is an issue that I, as Minister with responsibility for equality, would like to see addressed.
I thank Deputies Ó Fearghaíl, Mac Lochlainn, Maureen O'Sullivan, Mitchell O'Connor, Troy, Catherine Byrne, Catherine Murphy and Clare Daly for the contributions made on an important issue which is one we are addressing as part of our agenda for change to bring the institutions in this State, the Constitution of this State and the manner in which government is conducted in this State fully and totally into the 21st century, but when it comes to constitutional change at the end of the day it is the people who are the final arbiters. I hope the discussion we have had today on the very interesting report made by the convention will lead to further public discourse and discussion over the next 12 months. I look forward to bringing to government by the end of October next year the results of the workings of the groups that are being formed and again to come before the House on those matters. I also look forward to any further substantive submissions that any Member of this House or any individual outside it may wish to make to contribute to the process.