Internal governmental disagreements concerning the constitutional alteration regarding families and care persisted until just before the ultimate cutoff which would enable the early March referendum, as revealed by the minutes from the controlling group overseeing the process.
Specifically, the Department of Children’s proposed phrasing for the care referendum was distinctly condemned by other departments for increased risk exposure to the State and potential judicial involvement in resource allocation matters.
Throughout the period of March 2023 to November 2023, the Interdepartmental Group on Referendums on Gender Equality convened a total of 16 times for the purpose of consolidating language for the two family and care amendments, to be proposed to the Government. This committee had Laura McGarrigle, a high-ranking official from the Department of Children, at its helm. The 32-member forum included Attorney General Rossa Fanning and several key consultants to then Taoiseach and Tánaiste, Deirdre Gillane, Bríd Murphy, Gráinne Weld.
The Meeting records which were revealed on Wednesday featured redacted documentation which showed by September, the family referendum wording had agreement.
Disparity remained, however, on the care referendum language. There was pushback from several government departments against the Department of Children’s proposal to have the State adhere to “reasonable measures” to maintain carers’ rights. Detractors argued that this could make the State vulnerable to significant financial risk and legal action.
A diluted phrase, “shall endeavour,” from the original family and care article in the Constitution was preferred by some departments. The records have redacted the discussion regarding the compromise phrase “shall strive” for the care referendum, and how it came to be endorsed by the group.
According to the disclosed minutes, both the Cabinet and the group were evaluating “new options” for phrasing in the two weeks leading up to the government’s decision to release the legislation that would initiate the referendum.
The two alterations were approved by a substantial margin in the March 8th referendum. The documents also reveal that the critical phrase in the family referendum, “durable relationships,” had agreement reached by July.
The consensus among attendees was that the term ‘durable’ was a beneficial inclusion, with many pointing out that durable relationships are applicable to various types of family structures, inclusive of single parent families. Donohoe cautioned against adopting stringent wording in the care referendum concerning risk in spending.
A pivotal August meeting saw an attempt by the Department of Children to bolster the proposed amendment’s language and require the State to fulfill an obligation. This attempt met with considerable opposition from other Government departments. Until that time, the care referendum’s emphasis had been on the phrase “shall endeavour,” as documented in the meeting minutes.
Transitioning from that prior focus, the current document places a stronger emphasis on the phrase “reasonable measures” within the proposed changes. The Department of Children referenced both the Citizens’ Assembly report and the public and organisational submissions related to care. The proposed linguistic shift, however, encountered significant pushback. Many group members voiced major worries about the shift’s implications, from doing away with “shall endeavour” to the incorporation of “reasonable measures.”
Such a change would heighten the State’s risk level, potentially involve judiciary bodies in resource allocation, and set higher performance expectations for the state concerning service pressure and need. The meeting minutes recorded these reservations. By October, it was clear that the referendum would not take place until the spring of 2024, not by year-end 2023 as previously indicated.
Nov 7th saw the chair, Ms McGarrigle, reveal that a document outlining all the options for the care amendment recommendation was under discussion. Despite being late in the process, alternative amendment wordings were still under consideration. The need for a more comprehensive explanation of the legal implications of these new options was unanimously agreed upon. The cabinet committee settled on the final wording during a meeting on Nov 20th.