I bring to the attention of the Tánaiste a potential Government cover-up regarding the upcoming referendums. On Monday, 12 February, the former Attorney General and Minister for Justice, Senator Michael McDowell, accused the Minister, Deputy Roderic O'Gorman, of hiding vital information regarding the upcoming referendums in March. Senator McDowell's allegations suggest a significant cover-up by the Government and it is a matter that must be urgently addressed. I am today calling for the Government to come clean and to tell the truth, which is difficult for this Government.

Why would the Minister refuse to share the detailed notes from the crucial meetings from the interdepartmental group which considered the two referendums? These were no ordinary meetings. They were discussions which have grave impacts on our citizens and on our Constitution. These notes could shed light on how the changes to our laws might impact on taxation, social welfare, pensions, immigration and even family reunification for asylum seekers, landowners, farmers and everything else. By withholding this information, the Government is simply keeping us all in the dark, which is not only unfair but downright disrespectful to the public. This is not just a few ordinary meetings that are being kept secret. There are notes from a staggering 16 meetings and correspondence with the NGO Treoir is also being withheld.

The excuse the Government claims is that it is too early to share this correspondence as it might sway the vote, but let us call it for what it is. The Government is deliberately delaying the truth until after we cast our votes. The manipulation and misinformation goes against the very principles of democracy. Even the Electoral Commission cannot provide us with a clear picture of the consequences of these referendums. They are essentially telling us we will figure it all out later.

There is a downright cover-up designed to keep us in the dark and prevent us from making informed decisions. We have every right to demand transparency and access to the relevant information before we vote. We must stand up against this injustice and demand the immediate publication of these crucial minutes. Given the Government's lack of transparency and accountability, it is clear that voting no is the only sensible choice. We cannot allow ourselves to be manipulated by those in power who give precedence to their own priorities before those of our people, and we have seen that so many times. Will the Tánaiste commit to immediately publishing the detailed notes from these meetings of the interdepartmental group which considered the two referendums to ensure the public will be fully aware of the consequences and ensure full transparency ahead of the referendums on 8 March? It is crucial we have full information on what were not ordinary meetings but were 16 very important interdepartmental meetings over a long time, together with correspondence from NGOs. The people need to know the full truth.

There is no cover-up. There has been a series of Cabinet committee meetings, and these are where things are teased out and discussed, and various options are looked at and considered, if that is what the Deputy is referring to.

The amendment is very basic. One of the key ones is that the definition around family should reflect current realities. That is all we are saying to people. I am sure Deputy McGrath is a man who believes in cherishing all of the children of the nation equally. A total of 42% of all children born in 2022 were born to an unmarried couple. Are we saying the Constitution should not reflect that? Are we saying they should be excluded from the articles of the Constitution? We are simply saying in that amendment that we want to cherish all of the children and all of the various family units, including couples with or without children, single parents and their children, and grandparents raising children. We are simply saying all of those should be covered by the new article - nothing more, nothing less. People are endeavouring to complicate it and raising all sorts of red herrings which I do not believe have real substance. This has been the motivation of the Oireachtas all-party committee as well. The idea with the amendment on replacing the duties of women in the home was to replace it with a provision that recognises care in the home, without discriminating on gender, in other words, care provided in the home by any member of the family, and that the State should strive to support that.

That is, in essence, what is before the people. It is modest but they are important changes to our own Constitution which I think are good ones and have been welcomed by many people who have felt excluded for far too long in our society. There has been much deliberation on these issues for three decades now, I would say. It has been the subject of various Oireachtas committees, and perhaps the most recent Oireachtas committee, which was chaired by Deputy Bacik, may have wished us to go further on the care dimension to it. Again, with respect to the separation of powers, it is important the Oireachtas and the Government of the day and of the future retain the parliamentary discretion to prioritise allocation of resources at budget time. That has been the essential nature of how we order things in the country, that we have a Constitution which provides for fundamental rights and is essentially a liberal, rules of law based document which gives a lot of rights to the citizen but also creates the Executive, which is the Government of the day, and the Parliament, to then work through the allocation of resources to the various areas of society: education, health and so forth.

The Tánaiste is afraid to answer my question. If they are trying to rename Páirc Uí Chaoimh, they should call it Páirc Micheál Martin because he is so good at kicking the ball around and off the pitch, but will not play the ball on the pitch and deal with the questions he is asked.

The Minister, Deputy Catherine Martin, made an assessment that the Constitution says that a woman's place is in the home. Supreme Court judge Marie Baker, chair of the Electoral Commission, has clarified that the Constitution makes no such statement whatsoever. It is flabbergasting that a Supreme Court judge, who has been appointed by the Government to regulate misinformation during a referendum campaign, would say that a Minister's interpretation of the Constitution in the context of the referendum is simply wrong.

When she was questioned on this matter, the Minister contradicted the eminent judge and insisted that her interpretation is quite clear. Can the Tánaiste clarify if it is the Minister's interpretation that is correct, or is it the position of the chair of the Electoral Commission that is correct? Can he clarify the Government's position? We cannot have an Electoral Commission saying that a Minister's interpretation is incorrect and still have confidence in both the Minister and the Supreme Court judge and chair of the commission. We cannot set up an Electoral Commission to regulate misinformation in regard to a referendum and then turn a blind eye to the disinformation from the Government. What action will be taken against the Minister or any other Minister who is peddling misinformation? I want a direct answer to the question I am raising, not a trip around the park.

I appreciate the Deputy's plaudits in terms of my capacity to kick the ball around the pitch. I have to enlighten him that the position that the selectors decided for me as a young person was corner-back in an era when neither pace nor skill was a premium.

Good job you were not in goal.

People would understand what I mean by that.

Scoring own goals.

The role of the commission that has been established is to objectively assess the proposed changes and explain to the public, in an objective way, what the impact of the amendment will be. Political participants in the campaign, those who are for or against, will argue in favour of it.

What about a Minister?

I do not accept the charge the Deputy has laid. I have seen some stuff online about disinformation in terms of the difference between "duties" and "place", and I think it is completely over the top and is a complete misrepresentation of the Minister's presentation. The existing articles are clear. I would have appreciated a response to my question from the Deputy. Does he favour a more inclusive encapsulation of the concept of family, as reflected in modern-day reality? Does he accept that in the modern era? Some 42% of children are currently excluded. Does the Deputy think we should bring them in and include them in the Constitution?