Oireachtas Joint and Select Committees

Wednesday, 26 September 2018

Joint Oireachtas Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality

General Scheme of the Thirty-eighth Amendment of the Constitution (Role of Women) Bill: Discussion (Resumed)

9:00 am

Photo of Caoimhghín Ó CaoláinCaoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The purpose of the second session of today's meeting is to resume our pre-legislative scrutiny of the general scheme of the Thirty-eighth Amendment of the Constitution (Role of Women) Bill. We are joined by Mrs. Justice Catherine McGuinness, who is most welcome; Dr. Helen Russell and Dr. Frances McGinnity of the Economic and Social Research Institute; Mr. John Dunne, chief executive of Family Carers Ireland and Ms Catherine Cox, head of communications; Ms Joan Canning and Ms Hilda Roche of the Irish Countrywomen's Association; and Ms Pauline of the Stay-at-Home Parents Association Ireland. They are all very welcome. I also welcome their colleagues in the Visitors Gallery.

I will invite witnesses to make opening statements in the order in which I introduced them. I draw the attention of witnesses to the fact that by virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to the committee. However, if they are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and they continue to so do, they are entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and they are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any person, persons or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable.

I invite Mrs. Justice Catherine McGuinness to make her opening statement.

Mrs. Justice Catherine McGuinness:

I apologise to the committee for the fact that my written submission arrived rather late. I was staying in Connemara and, unfortunately, electronic communication from Connemara awaits the nationwide spread of broadband, which we all hope will occur shortly.

I am honoured to be asked to make a submission to this committee in connection with the scheme of arrangement for the 38th amendment to the Constitution. I am not representing any particular group. I take it that I have been asked simply because I have some knowledge of the law and the Constitution and have had experience over many years dating, I believe, from the time when there was an effort to remove the proportional representation method of election, of various attempts to amend the Constitution that have occurred during my lifetime. As the committee knows, many official and unofficial groups have criticised Article 41.2 of the Constitution and have sought either its deletion or its amendment to make it gender-equal. Even at the time of the drafting of the Constitution, prior to its enactment by the people, there were widespread protests by individual women such as Hanna Sheehy-Skeffington and leading individual republican women against the idea of including this article, which pictured women's role as chiefly being that of wife and mother.

It is necessary to look at the effect of this article over the years since its enactment. The committee will have seen from my written submission that the understanding was that it was effected discriminatory arrangements such as the marriage bar on employment, which lasted until 1973, and a general discriminatory attitude to women's employment outside the home. We must ask ourselves whether the article provided or provides positive or practical protection for the woman who remained in the home and cared for her children. It seems this was not the case in law or in practice. I had a personal involvement in the leading case I described in my written submission, namely, L v.L in 1989. While the High Court was willing to grant the woman an ownership of the family home because of her role as a wife and mother, this was firmly rejected by every judge on the Supreme Court. There were five judgments pointing out that this was not the kind of role that could be taken by relying on that and that legislation was the way to go. Indeed, legislation was the route that was taken in the subsequent divorce legislation.

Among many groups, it is widely agreed that Article 41.2 is outdated, discriminatory, and undesirable - at least in its current form. The question before the Oireachtas is whether we should try to amend that article, simply delete it or try to include fathers and their place within the home and family. It seems to me that the suggestion of widening the article to include fathers has distinct difficulties. I accept fully that fathers in this generation have a more hands-on and inclusive role in fatherhood and childminding than fathers in my generation or previous generations might have had. It is fair enough to include them in the first part of the article but what does one do with the second part, which basically says that women should be protected from working outside the home? That is the part of the article that has been effective over the years in the form of the marriage bar and so on. Should we say that fathers should be protected from working outside the home as well? I think that is somewhat impractical. On the other part, if we drop part two and the first part is left alone, it is simply a happy-sounding and vague sentiment rather than something will really affect people's lives.

People have asked that the article be amended to include a recognition of the work of carers in general. Again, I certainly appreciate the vital role played by carers and the need for more support for and recognition of carers of all kinds. However, before embarking on such a course of action, one must ask what a proposed inclusion of carers in the Constitution would really achieve or whether we want legislation. Most assistance for carers would involve decisions on public expenditure and one does not readily achieve anything from statements in the Constitution that require public expenditure. It requires legislation as well. Would the proposed inclusion achieve what is really needed or would it be what I have wickedly described as simply a pious aspiration? Given that most assistance for carers would require decisions on public expenditure, the courts rightly regard these as the preserve of the Oireachtas and Government and believe that it is for the Oireachtas to decide these things, not the courts. It is part of the division of powers. There is a problem with regard to the definition of the word "carers". We have seen this in the somewhat strange suggestion by the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Ross, that we should give €1,000 to every granny. As a granny, that would be just lovely but such a suggestion falls down on the definition of the word "granny". Equally, when one gets to the definition of the word "carer", which is a wide concept, there might be legal difficulties arising out of that subsequently.

However much we regard carers, before we embark on constitutional change, we must examine what we really want to get, how exactly we want to get it and how we would avoid unforeseen later difficulties and problems. One has only to consider the history of the eighth amendment plus the proposed 12th amendment, which did not pass; the 13th amendment; the 14th amendment; and finally the need for repeal, to understand what happens when one tries to change the Constitution without being extremely careful about what exactly we are saying and what it means. Members are aware that the provision for divorce in the Constitution was excessively detailed. This may have been needed at the time to get the referendum passed. We would now love to be able to simplify and reform the divorce law but we must run a referendum and change the Constitution in order to do so. The difficulty about framing a wording to assist carers is that we can fall between the Scylla of an anodyne aspiration and the Charybdis of an over-complex attempted direction of the Legislature that creates later problems.

In summary, if we have decided that we are moving to take away Article 41.2, we should delete it simplicitor. Let us simply delete the article. If the will of the Oireachtas is to seek a referendum to benefit carers or to have a gender-balanced article, we should frame an article and think carefully with good advice about what wording we could have to avoid difficulties and to try to ensure it would be effective. That is really all I have to say.

Photo of Caoimhghín Ó CaoláinCaoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mrs. Justice McGuinness. We very much appreciate not only her written submission but her delivery of her views on the matter this morning.

The next speakers are Dr. Helen Russell and Dr. Frances McGinnity from the Economic and Social Research Institute, ESRI.

Dr. Helen Russell:

I thank the committee for inviting the ESRI to attend today. My name is Helen Russell and I am the deputy head of the social research division at the institute. I am joined by my colleague, Dr. Frances McGinnity. Together we lead research on equality at the institute.

The role of the ESRI is to provide an evidence base for policy rather than advocate for a particular position, and it is in that capacity that we appear before the committee. In our submission we present a number of ESRI studies, which shed light on the changing gender roles and the distribution of paid work and unpaid, and care, in Ireland. The evidence shows that there is a clear mismatch between the role of women as framed in Article 41.2 of the Constitution and the reality of women's lives in the 21st century. Our research highlights the need to assess the impact of policy and legislation on gender inequalities both inside and outside the home and in both paid and unpaid work. It also reveals some of the complexities in defining unpaid work and care that may arise in the case of replacement wording for Article 41.2. In our submission, we focus on three issues, namely, how the role of women in Ireland in paid employment has changed; the measurement and distribution of care and unpaid work; and the nature of policy support for combining employment and caring for young children.

I will first deal with the changing position of women in the labour market. In a recent overview we documented this change over 50 years. We saw that, starting from a very low base, women's employment gradually increased over the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s as a number of barriers were addressed, including the removal of the marriage bar and the introduction of equal pay legislation. Women's educational qualifications over that period also increased. The pace of change in women's employment accelerated even further in the 1990s and 2000s. This period encompassed both significant policy development and an upsurge in demand for labour during the Celtic tiger era. Women responded to these changes with a rapid movement into the labour market. The employment rate for women rose from 36% in 1990 to 60% in 2016. While the gender gap in employment rates has narrowed, gender differences persist in pay, the hours of work and conditions. For example, one third of women work part-time compared with 13% of men and the gender pay gap has stuck at around 15%.

The increase in female employment has been widespread and has included the mothers of young children. In the Growing Up in Ireland study we oversee at the ESRI, we found that just over 50% of mothers are in employment when their child turns three years of age and almost 60% by the time their child is aged five, although OECD figures still show that the rate of employment among mothers of young children in Ireland is below the OECD average. In summary, this evidence suggests that many women enter employment when afforded the opportunity and barriers are removed, though significant gender differences persist in the labour market.

I will now turn to our research on the gender division of caring and unpaid work and whether there has been a corresponding shift in men and women's involvement in unpaid work and caring. There is significantly less information on this side of the equation. I think that reflects the lack of visibility and the undervaluing of care work. One of the first issues we need to consider when researching this issue is how broadly "unpaid" should be defined. From a gender equality perspective, the distribution of domestic work such as cooking and housework is really important. Therefore, in our research and, indeed, the international research on gender equality, we include both aspects alongside caring.

Time-use surveys are seen as the gold standard for measuring non-market work. In Ireland there has been only one national survey of this kind, which we carried out at the ESRI in 2005 with support from the Department of Justice and Equality. The survey showed that the quantity of this unpaid work is very substantial indeed, and that its distribution is strongly gendered. On average, women spend just less than five hours per day on unpaid work while men did just under two hours of unpaid work per day. Within this, women spent an average of two and a half hours per day on care, while men spent 39 minutes and these figures include care for both adults and children. Data on the distribution of care work from a European-wide survey allow for some comparison over time. It showed that in 2016, 44% of women and 25% of men in Ireland were involved in care work on a daily basis. These figures were virtually unchanged since 2003, when the first European survey was undertaken. The research suggests that there has been some change in the division of housework in Ireland but the gender gap for it remains wide.

In summary, the research highlights the scale of care and unpaid work and the importance of the making visible and valuing these activities from a gender equality perspective. One step towards highlighting unpaid work is to measure it regularly by collecting time-use surveys like other countries do. Such a measure would allow for an economic valuation of care work.

The final issue that the ESRI researched was the policy supports for combining care and employment. In this section we focused on the care of children because that is where our own work has centred. Historically, there has been a very low level of State support for childcare in Ireland. Investment and policy development was, in part, curtailed by political ambiguity about the merits of supporting mothers to enter employment. There has been an increase in investment in childcare over the past decade, including the introduction of the free preschool year and the affordable childcare scheme, which represents a shift in policy. Nevertheless families face a high burden of costs. Comparative research shows that the cost of childcare in Ireland is one of the highest across the OECD. The ESRI study showed that parents pay an average of 12% of disposable household income on childcare for one child aged three. The study also clearly demonstrated that the amount that families pay for childcare affects how much paid employment mothers subsequently do, and that higher costs are associated with a subsequent reduction in women's paid work hours.

A further finding of the study was the considerable involvement of relatives, particularly grandparents, in providing childcare in Ireland. At three years of age, among the children who are looked after outside of their homes, 23% of them were being cared for by a relative. Some of that care was paid while some was unpaid. In 55% of the cases, the relative was unpaid but in 45% of the cases the relative was paid. This highlights the blurred boundaries between care inside and outside the home and between paid versus unpaid caring. We might have to grapple with that and provide alternative wording.

I will briefly discuss parental and maternity leave. Family leave is another important element of supporting the combination of paid work and care for children. Provision for parents takes the form of maternity leave, paternity leave and parental leave. The duration of maternity leave compares reasonably well with other European countries. However, the relatively low maximum threshold means that the replacement rate for maternity benefit in Ireland falls well below the level found in a number of comparable EU countries. Parental leave for both parents has been extended to 18 weeks per child but is unpaid and a father's entitlement to paid leave is confined to two weeks of paternity leave. When one combines those supports and consider the amount and value of paid leave, one finds that Ireland falls in the lowest of three groups across 43 countries. There is considerable scope there for improvement. The international evidence also suggests that where fathers take parental leave, it can lead to a greater sharing of unpaid work and care within the household, and that uptake by fathers is strongly related to payment. We know that the uptake of unpaid parental leave is very low among fathers in Ireland. This evidence suggests that combining work and the caring of young children in Ireland remains challenging, and that there are still significant gaps in support.

In conclusion, the research that we have drawn on highlights there have been very significant changes in gender roles in Ireland but also the continued relevance of gender inequalities in the public and private sphere. Care and unpaid work have consistently been undervalued yet the scale of that endeavour is very substantial.

The removal of the outdated gender stereotyping contained in Article 41.2 is an important symbolic move in terms of gender equality, a point that is recognised by a wide range of bodies. Our research does not speak directly to whether it should be replaced by another form of text. It highlights a small part of the complexity that faces individuals and families in balancing paid work, housework and care needs, which change over people's lifetimes. It also presents some of the issues involved in defining care and non-market work that are likely to arise in the framing and interpretation of alternative wording to the article. Our research also underlines the importance of a series of incremental legislative and policy changes that aimed to remove barriers to women's entry to the labour market and reduce gender inequalities in employment and access to resources. These supports remain necessary so that women can exercise their right to equal participation in public life while recognising and valuing contributions to care work.

Photo of Caoimhghín Ó CaoláinCaoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Dr. Russell for a very informed presentation and the ESRI for its detailed research on this matter. It is most helpful. I now call Mr. Dunne and Ms Cox. Mr. Dunne is the token man today. He is welcome.

Mr. John Dunne:

Very brave of me.

Photo of Caoimhghín Ó CaoláinCaoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes. Mr. Dunne is chief executive of Family Carers Ireland and Ms Cox is its head of communications. One or other may speak or whichever way they have decided it. I open the floor to them.

Mr. John Dunne:

I thank the committee for the opportunity to present to it on this important topic. I will provide a brief introduction. Family Carers Ireland is a national charity that, for 26 years, has worked to improve supports, services and recognition for anyone living with the challenges of caring for a family member or friend who is ill, frail or disabled or has mental health difficulties. We have more than 4,000 members and operate 20 carer resource centres throughout the country and almost 100 community groups. We also provide in-home respite and home care throughout the country as an approved HSE provider. Our submission is based on our experience of supporting and advocating for Ireland's 355,000 family carers, which is a figure from the CSO rather than us.

On the issue of Article 41.2, Family Carers Ireland does not support repeal simpliciter. Having listened to Mrs. Justice McGuinness, I am conscious that this puts us in direct opposition to her. We acknowledge the arguments she makes, but we have reached a different conclusion. I will explain why.

We have no issue with the overwhelming consensus that the article should be reworded to make it gender neutral. We also agree with the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, IHREC, that the new wording should reference family life and that such reference should be understood as covering a wide range of family relationships, including situations where families do not live in the same home. Most importantly, we believe that the replacement for Article 41.2 should make the recognition and support for unpaid care in the home that is implicit in the current wording explicit in the new wording.

Much of the discussion that I have heard about this issue so far has been in the context of the evolution of the Constitution and Irish society historically. I will put it in a slightly different context, namely, the international context of today. Ireland is typical of every country in the world, in that its health and social care system is predicated on complementary care and support provided through an extended family system. However, Ireland is quite unusual in not specifying a constitutional framework around the respective roles of the State and the community in the provision of this care. Virtually every other country in the EU has some sort of legal basis where this is stated, but it is not stated explicitly anywhere in Irish law or the Constitution.

Family Carers Ireland believes that the overwhelming consensus in Ireland would support a constitutional provision that recognised the family's primary role in the provision of care and the State's self-interested responsibility to support families in performing this role as well as acting as the provider of last resort where a family was unwilling or unable to perform the role properly. There is survey evidence to suggest this is the case.

Our overall preference would be based on the relevant provision in the Portuguese constitution, namely, Article 67. I have supplied a copy in my note. However, we acknowledge that that particular format would not sit comfortably within the current structure of Bunreacht na hÉireann. Therefore, we commend the wording that would probably sit best - that proposed by the Constitution Review Group in 1996 - to the committee and the Government, that being, to delete Article 41.2 and replace it with the following:

The State recognises that family life gives to society a support without which the common good cannot be achieved. The State shall endeavour to support persons caring for others within the home.

We would reject the suggestion that the second sentence be moved to Article 45, as we believe it is appropriate to frame the State's role as a "duty of imperfect obligation". I take the point that it is imperfect. Were we writing the article from our own perspective, we would simply write, "The State shall support", but we recognise that is unrealistic. On the other hand, moving it to Article 45 would downgrade it to a "guiding principle". I do not mean to be smart when I say that we were looking for something stronger than that.

I take Mrs. Justice McGuinness's point that much of what we talk about in terms of supports involves expenditure and that, in a sense, the constitutional provision would be limited in that respect one way or the other. However, it is not anodyne to have an actual recognition of the role in the Constitution. It also happens to be in keeping with the Government's national carer's strategy, which sets out three principles, the first of which is recognition. That is something that carers value very much. They find themselves battling constantly against the system for what they need. I am not trying to make a point today other than to say that, if they at least felt recognition in that ongoing struggle for what they were doing, it would be some consolation to them.

Article 41.2 has included the formula "shall [...] endeavour to support" for 80 years. As Mrs. Justice McGuinness stated, it has not really worked and has hardly acted as a magnet for successful litigation or judicial subversion of the separation of powers. Indeed, in the event of a challenge under the proposed wording, it seems reasonable for the State to point out that it spends approximately €2.5 billion annually on its existing endeavours to support family carers through schemes that are defined in statute. We would be critical of the adequacy and effectiveness of some of this expenditure, particularly the arbitrary pattern of its delivery in terms of a postcode lottery and the fact that care in the home saves the State well in excess of €10 billion per year in return for its investment, but I struggle to see how any court might conclude that it did not represent a material "endeavour" in most circumstances. We do not believe that this would open an enormous hole down which Government finances would disappear.

Others have already pointed out in this committee that judicable rights in the Constitution are not absolute. What I have not heard in the considerations so far is the point that a right does not have to be enumerated in the Constitution to be guaranteed by it. If the Government is worried about unknown risks, I venture to suggest that the risks are more controlled around a wording that includes "duty of imperfect obligation" than around an absence of any wording, which could leave the Supreme Court open to affirming any one or more unspecified and, therefore, potentially unqualified rights.

Deletion simpliciterhas been described as the pathway with the fewest risks and the safest way forward. We would argue that deliberately and publicly repudiating the contribution of family care in the home, which is what it would amount to, constitutes a much greater risk to society and public policy in the medium term. Ireland faces a significant and rapidly growing demographic challenge. There has been a 36% increase in our older population and a 63% increase in people living with a disability over the same period. One in ten people living in Ireland is providing some level of family care. With the demographic changes that we are expecting, this figure will need to increase to one in five by 2030 if our existing policies and systems are to be sustainable. How will this happen without a clear social contract between the State and family carers?

In recent years, it has not been unusual to hear leading Government figures speak of building an Ireland that is the best place in the world in which to live, work and grow old. We would all agree with that. Where is that ambition hiding in talk of running away from the "unintended consequences" of modernising Article 41.2? Do we want to take the pathway of least risk or the right pathway? We should be thinking in terms of intended consequences, those being, to recognise and support care in the home.

Photo of Caoimhghín Ó CaoláinCaoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. Dunne and Family Carers Ireland. We will move on to the Irish Countrywomen's Association, ICA. I welcome Ms Joan Canning, the president of the Dublin federation, and Ms Hilda Roche, the president of the Wicklow federation. I invite Ms Canning to lead off.

Ms Joan Canning:

Good morning. The ICA welcomes the opportunity to make this presentation and to contribute to the discussion on the proposed amendment of the Constitution addressing Article 41.2. On behalf of the national executive board, my colleague and I will outline the observations of the ICA on this matter. We hope that doing so will assist the committee in its recommendations and in the most effective next steps to ensure that the Constitution will be reflective of Irish society generally and the role of women in Ireland in the 21st century.

I will deal with points one to four and my colleague Ms Roche will deal with the remaining points.

The ICA is a well-known and respected organisation in Ireland and has had a significant role since its foundation in 1910. In more than a century, the association has been a vital support to women who gained personally, emotionally and vocationally in being part of a community based, but nationally representative, women’s organisation. Our communities and our families benefited from the personal development which we all experienced, and from the association’s attention to all aspects of women’s lives. The ICA has been a lead voice in campaigning for change to benefit women individually, as well as to enhance family life and that of the wider community. We are a founding member of the National Women’s Council of Ireland, NWCI, and a member of the Associated Country Women of the World, ACWW, and active in both.

It is with this background and track record that we make the following observations on Article 41.2 and its focus on a woman’s "life in the home" and "duties in the home".

Ms Hilda Roche:

In the first instance, we support the position of the National Women’s Council of Ireland that this matter warrants an active and wide-ranging debate, with a focus on the intent of the wording relating to care and nurture and how that intent can best be articulated in the 21st century. We believe that the wording in the Constitution has been interpreted in a narrow and restrictive way rather than facilitating a rights-based approach, ensuring that the value of nurture and care would be resourced, supported and valued. We take the view that as it stands, the wording confined women to the role of unpaid homemakers, although even back in the 1930s this hardly reflected the reality of many women’s lives, whether in farming, family businesses or other work. Then, as now, thousands of women were also critical to the economic survival of families. The fact is that identifying women in their role in the home served to provide the basis for discrimination such as the marriage ban and differential wage rates for women and men. We reject any intent or interpretation that fails to recognise women as equal citizens and contributors to our society.

Today, we recognise increasingly the diverse roles of men and women within our families and intergenerationally. We also have a greater understanding of the shared and mutually enhancing roles of men and women in the caring responsibilities, whether of children or older relations, and in supporting healthy communities. At the level of the family, care responsibilities involve huge strain. We have not managed to create the correct infrastructure or an appropriate way of thinking about these realities as being equally important as economic sustainability and development. These are just a few observations we believe are relevant to a debate which should focus on care and nurture as a social necessity and an essential good. We would hope that a national conversation would pose many questions and provide for a real opportunity to consider questions such as these. Does the Constitution require a statement which endorses and underpins the value of families, and perhaps communities, as central to the support, care, nurture and development of us all? What difference do we want to make and what is required to realise that difference? How do we reflect the importance of men and women in the intergenerational care "contract" and is the Constitution the starting point? Do we need to be even more explicit about the equality of all citizens and the multiple roles that we all carry and have the potential to achieve? Go raibh maith agaibh as ucht éisteacht linn.

Photo of Caoimhghín Ó CaoláinCaoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Ms Canning and Ms Roche who spoke on behalf of the Irish Countrywomen's Association. Our final contributor is Ms Pauline O'Reilly on behalf of the Stay-at-Home Parents Association of Ireland.

Ms Pauline O'Reilly:

I thank the Chair and the committee for the invitation to speak here today. Being seen goes to the heart of what I am going to talk about, so that recognition was really important to us. I was to have a colleague here today and it is appropriate to say that she is with her three children because her husband could not take time off of work for her to be here. I will start with that in an emotional way because this is emotional for us. When we go into the polling station as people who are carers and have been carers and mark an X beside a "Yes" or a "No" on that ballot paper, we are all attempting to assert our values. It is not a piece of legislation. It is something more visceral and it is important to remember that the Constitution is a document that represents the people’s voice. That includes carers.

We also support the approach of the National Women's Council of Ireland. Today, therefore, we are calling for an amendment to Article 41.2 that is compassionate, including the removal of the paternalistic and sexist language that we can all agree is offensive and the inclusion of a recognition that nurturing is important to who we are as a nation. We mean this in the broadest possible sense of community. We respectfully question the idea that deletion is simpler. Life is not always simple and it exists in the margins of economic activity far too often. We feel this is a unique opportunity to express ourselves as a people and if further examination is required to do this, then that is important work and can be done before any referendum takes place.

I am going to touch first on the notion of equality because this seems to have been key to the Minister’s motion. We firmly believe that the liberation of women is being conflated with economic activity for women rather than looking at equality within the home and the workforce. There are many different measures that can be taken within the workforce as well as within the home. Some may say that care work is something that holds us back as women and as a society, but in fact it is the lack of choice, the lack of financial support and the lack of recognition that really holds us back. Whether we work outside of the home full-time, part-time or not at all, caring still happens. The cared for must still be cared for by someone. We know that, currently, women carry out most of this work. We would like to see a more equal contribution from all genders and we believe that this can be achieved only by elevating the status of care work. Even within the paid workforce women carry out the majority of care work, such as in crèches, and these roles are among the lowest paid. Who are we that we diminish the value of being with children and vulnerable adults and put every other work above that?

When we voted "Yes" on 25 May, we voted not only for the choice to end pregnancies, but also "Yes" to support with the continuation of pregnancies for those who made that choice. Deleting care from the Constitution flies in the face of the commitment made on the doors, including my me, to support all choices. I am speaking on my own behalf when I say that. I will outline some practical considerations that we feel people should take on board when it comes to the referendum. I ask that we put ourselves in the shoes of those going in to vote. We do not want to pit ourselves against anyone. That can often happen when people are in different circumstances in the home and outside of the home. We are fearful that a referendum that offers deletion versus retention instead of amendment versus retention would do that.

With tax individualisation in 2000, the reduction in supports for lone parents who care at home and the lack of an increase for foster carers, we have experienced at first hand the erosion of the supports for families. Article 41.2 has never been challenged directly and certainly not in the Supreme Court. Even as it stands, however, it could be argued that certain minimal supports such as child benefit and home carer tax credit could be dented more easily if it were removed without amendment. This will weigh heavily on our members and other carers, who rely on these and other supports, when the time comes to vote. They will be weighing up their commitment to gender equality, which most of us genuinely have, with the hard facts of looking out for our families' financial survival and our children's futures.

The Stay-at-Home Parents Association is a relatively new organisation, unlike some of the others here. We were formed out of a common feeling of isolation and the lack of a voice. There are no trade unions for those engaged in unpaid work nor could we afford to join a union. No statutory bodies have been established to support our work in the home but we are a huge section of the population, past and present.

From the outset we have been firm as an organisation in our belief that all families should be supported equally, whether engaged in paid or unpaid work and whether headed by lone parents, married or cohabiting couples, including those from the LGBT+ community. As an organisation we are secular. We will take people from any religion and none. We want to be recognised for our diversity as families in the broadest possible sense in an ever-changing society.

What is care? There is the physical and mental labour it entails, but there is also the time away from paid employment that we cannot ignore. It always means providing for those who cannot earn an income and, therefore, it is financially a very difficult position for most. The committee may have heard that more parents would choose to work outside of the home if childcare was affordable. Some would but there are also many who cannot afford to stay home. It is the lowest paid who return to work the fastest because they need the financial support. The fact that we need more childcare is true. That is a discussion for another day. We certainly believe that everybody should have all choices on the table but staying at home is almost never the cheaper option, yet the majority, 62%, of those who stay at home are the sole caregivers to their children according to the CSO. To this figure should be added all of those who are cared for and those who care on a non-full time basis - on maternity leave, on parental leave, and during every single waking moment outside of paid employment. As a society we would not be looking for these supports if being with family and community did not matter to us.

While we seek to put forward the position of parents and guardians caring for children - and that is my job here today - we believe that the care of older persons and vulnerable adults is equally important. Many of us in this room would be in that position. We also recognise the valuable social and cultural contribution that the children and adults who are being cared for make to society. This is often forgotten. We are carers for people because those people matter.

The reason care work should be recognised in the Constitution, as opposed to in legislation, is that Governments enacting such legislation are often concerned with short-term economic activity - budget to budget kind of stuff. The Constitution should assert higher values. Fundamentally we want Governments now and in the future to take note that paid labour market activation is not the only goal of our society, in fact it is a means to an end for our society and not a goal at all. We want time with our families whatever their shape and wherever we work.

Photo of Caoimhghín Ó CaoláinCaoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Ms O'Reilly. It would be appropriate if we also sent solidarity and good wishes to Ms Catherine Walsh, who I hope is watching as this meeting is taking place. We hope the children are behaving. There may well be members of the respective organisations represented here, and particularly family carers, stay-at-home parents and those who are providing this essential support and service and it is only right and proper that we send them our good wishes from this committee and this session. I thank one and all. Before we go into Members' contributions, I propose we do not pose questions to which I need to seek five different answers. We want everyone to be a participant but it would be helpful if Members were to indicate, perhaps, two witnesses they would like to respond to a given question. They might juggle it around a little bit and shuffle it. We will then get through our work in a reasonable timeframe. Deputy Jim O'Callaghan is first. I know that Deputy Mick Wallace had indicated at the start, but he has a little bit of catching up to do because he has been in the House.

Photo of Jim O'CallaghanJim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does Deputy Wallace want to go first?

Photo of Mick WallaceMick Wallace (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am sorry. I had to go the Chamber for a question. I am really sorry about that.

Photo of Caoimhghín Ó CaoláinCaoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy was holding a Minister to account as only he can. Deputy O'Callaghan has the floor.

Photo of Jim O'CallaghanJim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Chairman. I thank all the witnesses for coming in this morning and for the reports they have prepared. I have found them very helpful. It is also very encouraging that people attach such importance to the Constitution, really regard it as their document, and are very concerned about how and if it should be changed. Where we are as a committee, and where I believe everyone here today is, is that everyone believes that the wording in Article 41.2 is inappropriate and that it should go. There are three options for us a committee when we come to making a recommendation. The first is that we just recommend deletion. The second is that we recommend amending the article not in a meaningful way but just to make it gender neutral and more fair in respect of gender. The third option is that we would amend it in a meaningful way so that it would become a socioeconomic right under the Constitution. My own preliminary view, and I have not reached a final view, is similar to the view of Mrs. Justice McGuinness, which is that deletion is probably safer. Perhaps I am being over cautious about that.

In terms of a proposed amendment to Article 41.2, would Mrs. Justice McGuinness agree that it is meaningless at present in terms of giving rights to women or even entitling a man to take a claim that he has been discriminated against because he is not mentioned there?

Mrs. Justice Catherine McGuinness:

Yes. Listening to the other people, my opinion definitely makes me appear to be the nasty one who recommends simply deletion and so on. This is, of course, not based at all on me not appreciating everything that carers and fathers and mothers do. I am a mother and a grandmother myself. I am just listening to what the ESRI said. I listened to the figures it gave and it seems that they provide a perfect illustration of the fact that the existing article has done no good at all for equality for women or families. That is the fact. If we are thinking of creating a new article about carers - and I believe that most of us agree we are talking about carers in general, not just bringing men into the original article along with women - we really have to look at the effect it can have given that the Constitution is not a policy document. I know it also sets out values, but it is a basic law. We would have to look and see. If one asks me to say something one gets a legal opinion. It would have to be envisaged whether, if there was a challenge in court as to whether the good things that were set out in the amendment were actually being done by the Government, the courts could grant what the Deputy has rightly described as a socioeconomic right. As the Deputy will know, the Irish courts have been remarkably reluctant, certainly in recent years and at least since Cearbhall Ó Dálaigh, to grant socioeconomic rights. I am not totally against putting in something that would show the value of caring but I ask the Deputy please not to think that it will mean that every Government will leap into really doing something practical.

Photo of Jim O'CallaghanJim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Would Mrs. Justice McGuinness agree that the right itself, as it exists at present, has not done anything for women and has not given them any rights before the courts?

Mrs. Justice Catherine McGuinness:

No, it has not. That is clear from what is said by the ESRI.

Photo of Jim O'CallaghanJim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is a purely symbolic right.

Mrs. Justice Catherine McGuinness:

Yes.

Photo of Jim O'CallaghanJim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In that case, are we being overly cautious, as a lawyer and a judge, about simply changing it so that it remains a symbolic right but is broadened to include people other than women? Could that be done if we changed it in the way recommended by the Constitutional Convention or as has been suggested by Mr. Dunne and Ms Cox? The courts are hardly going to interpret that differently.

Mrs. Justice Catherine McGuinness:

I obviously could not be totally against that, by any means. I just think a cleaner way of doing it would be to take out the article that we have rather than trying to mess around with its wording and then to try to frame and set out de novoa broader article. We just should not think it is going to achieve the devil and all. I certainly do not think there would be anything wrong in doing that.

Photo of Jim O'CallaghanJim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes. Sorry, did Mr. Dunne want to say something?

Mr. John Dunne:

I said quite explicitly in my remarks that we do not see this as creating any massive new socio-economic right. I think the wording "shall endeavour" has delivered. There have been policies to support care in the home over the years. There may not have been much judicial review of them. I assure Deputy O'Callaghan that if a provision with the wording "shall endeavour to support carers" goes in and we feel it is being neglected, we will take the opportunity to challenge that as an organisation. In doing so, we would recognise that it would be quite easy for the State to defend, so it would have to be something pretty egregious before it would be used. The main point of our argument is not about socio-economic rights; it is about recognition and the fact that, like it or lump it, that provision is in the Constitution. Taking it out will be seen as a significant regressive step. This is why we recommend putting in something which is not at all a whole lot stronger but at least leaving it in the Constitution as an acknowledgement of the value of care in the home.

Photo of Jim O'CallaghanJim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What Mr. Dunne and Ms Cox are advocating, then, is that it be changed but that it will not be changed in any meaningful way other than it remaining symbolic. It will not simply apply to women, however, but will recognise the role of people-----

Mr. John Dunne:

The formula "shall endeavour" stays exactly the same as it has been for 80 years.

Photo of Jim O'CallaghanJim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Okay. Sorry, did Ms Cox want to say something?

Ms Catherine Cox:

When we talk about social and economic value, we must remember that carers provide vital social and economic value to our society and in our community-----

Photo of Jim O'CallaghanJim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, I fully accept that.

Ms Catherine Cox:

-----with a saving of €10 billion every year. As Mr. Dunne said, we have put this to carers, and deletion, to us, is the greatest risk because if this is deleted and taken out of the Constitution, a message is sent that caring in the home is not valued. It is an unintentional message but it is the message that will be received. There would be-----

Photo of Jim O'CallaghanJim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Perhaps Ms Canning, Ms Roche or Ms O'Reilly will want to comment on this. I will set out what my concern about an amendment would be. I ask the witnesses to consider what would happen if we changed the provision significantly and it was then left to the courts to interpret some new article. When courts interpret rights under the Constitution, they do so on the basis of the people who take cases before them. I gave the example last week of an 18 year old who collects his sister after school at 2.30 p.m. and minds her until the parents come home at 6.30 p.m. What I would not like to see is some vague right put in, that individual going before the court and a judge telling him he comes within the definition of a carer in the home and is entitled to be financially compensated and rewarded by the State. Then the State would just deal with him and it would affect the whole social welfare policy and budget that the State affords to carers in general. That is my fear about it, and I do not think it is an irrational fear if we go down the line of creating an absolutely new right. I do not know whether Ms Canning, Ms Roche or Ms O'Reilly wish to comment. I think they advocated that there be a really strong right within the Constitution to-----

Ms Hilda Roche:

It was more that we felt it must be gender-neutral and that recognition should be given to carers. I do not feel we are looking for something completely different. It is really to amend what we have to bring it more in keeping with the 21st century.

Photo of Jim O'CallaghanJim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is very helpful. As I said, my view initially has been deletion, but I can understand the importance to people of having a constitutional provision-----

Ms Hilda Roche:

Recognition, yes.

Photo of Jim O'CallaghanJim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----that recognises the symbolic role of carers. Perhaps I am looking at this too much as a cautious lawyer or something, concerned about what rights would be generated. I am sure it can be done in order that the wording could be amended so it would not give rise to any new interpretation.

I wish to ask the witnesses about one final point. I mentioned this to my colleagues yesterday. There is another provision in the Constitution, Article 45.4.2°. I will read out to the witnesses what it says. It comes under the directives in respect of social policy.

The State shall endeavour to ensure that the strength and health of workers, men and women, and the tender age of children shall not be abused and that citizens shall not be forced by economic necessity to enter avocations unsuited to their sex, age or strength.

I am not putting the witnesses on the spot here, but this provision is perhaps similarly anachronistic since it suggests that there are certain "avocations", which are jobs, that people cannot do because of their sex. I do not know if there are any that remain, but this was written in the 1930s, in fairness. Perhaps the witnesses could get a chance to reflect on this, even if they cannot do so today. It could be amended by the deletion of the word "sex" in order that we would still take account of age and strength.

Ms Pauline O'Reilly:

May I say something about this?

Photo of Jim O'CallaghanJim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, certainly.

Ms Pauline O'Reilly:

We are against an amendment to Article 45.2 instead. I think it has been fairly clear from last week that Article 45.2 is non-justiciable. I do not think it will take much for us to hash that out in public to make it clear. I think deletion versus retention is probably much more dangerous politically than anything else. Voters would go into a polling station and have the two options, one of which is about care and one, as I think I outlined there, about removal. Child benefit has been spoken about a couple of times this year. It is very fresh in the minds of those who care in the home that removal of this article without putting something in creates a fear for people. We would then have to go into the polling station and balance how we feel about gender equality, which is a no-brainer, and how we feel about our families. If, however, we are in the polling station and we see the option to retain something that is clearly sexist versus amending it with something that values us, it is a no-brainer. That is what I would say from a political perspective. I take the point that the Constitution is a legal document - I myself have been a solicitor in the past - but it also has a non-legal basis, which we all recognise, and political decisions are made on the basis of what it says in the Constitution, which is only right.

Photo of Jim O'CallaghanJim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank all the witnesses.

Photo of Caoimhghín Ó CaoláinCaoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is Deputy O'Callaghan happy enough with that?

Photo of Jim O'CallaghanJim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

Photo of Caoimhghín Ó CaoláinCaoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are doing this as we go along. We saw how it worked with Deputy O'Callaghan. If any of the witnesses would like to come in at any point, they should feel absolutely at their ease. The next in line is Deputy Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire, to be followed by Senator Lorraine Clifford-Lee.

Photo of Donnchadh Ó LaoghaireDonnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am glad we have had these hearings. There was a bit of a discussion some time ago to the effect that we should just proceed with the constitutional proposal as it was, as formulated by the Government. I think this hearing and the previous hearing have been valuable because there is an interesting discussion to be had on this as to whether there should be a simple deletion or whether there should be a replacement. I am in a similar position to Deputy O'Callaghan except on the opposite side of the equation in that I hold an open mind but that I am generally more inclined to replacing the current constitutional provision with something that is gender-neutral and provides a meaningful recognition of the role of carers. Having said that, I retain an open mind on the matter. These hearings are also useful in concentrating our minds, as legislators, on some of the legislative issues that need to be addressed in supporting stay-at-home parents, maternity and paternity benefit, shared parental benefit and leave and all kinds of other issues which need to be addressed. The Constitution is our basic law and there is a statement of principles there too, but obviously the legislation needs to be there too. At present we are dealing with a proposal regarding a constitutional question. I will direct my questions primarily to Mrs. Justice McGuinness but perhaps also to some of the other speakers as we go along. As with Deputy O'Callaghan, if any of the speakers or organisations want to offer a comment on any of the questions, that would be welcome too.

I will correct Mrs. Justice McGuinness if I may. I do not think anyone thinks she has come across in any way as nasty or anything like that. I think everyone very much understands that this is a legal discussion so I think everyone appreciates the perspective from which she is coming.

Regarding Article 41.2, if the wording were to be along the lines of that proposed by the constitutional review group, I think, which was the point put forward by the family carers, if Mrs. Justice McGuinness were a lawyer at this point in time and if someone came to her asking whether he or she could take a case on the basis of that wording, does she think there would be any obvious justiciable angle for anyone who wished to pursue such a case?

Mrs. Justice Catherine McGuinness:

I do not really think there is any specific way in which one can deal with these things. The difficulty about taking cases on any of these articles is that so many of them involve public expenditure. It is clear in the basic laws of the country that public expenditure is the task of the Oireachtas, led by the Government. The courts are unlikely to order public expenditure, other than in certain cases in which money is owed to citizens. I mention as an example a case in which a large number of elderly people in nursing homes were wrongly charged a fee for their care. That question arose as a constitutional area which was dealt with by the Supreme Court, which ordered that all the money should be paid back to the elderly people who had been wrongly charged. This judgment was unpopular enough from the Government's point of view. That kind of decision can be made.

I suggest there is a good case to be made for making a supportive overall statement about care in general. Care occurs inside and outside the family. Young people and older people are cared for. I would not by any means entirely agree with setting that out in the Constitution as a kind of ideal value, but that is a separate thing from fiddling about by amending the article that is in place now. It is better to say that we will get rid of this and put in what we really want. That is the simplest way of approaching it. On the other hand, I do not see a case arising in which a carer tries to establish a case. I would also fear that we might get a kind of unbalanced thing along the lines of what Deputy O'Callaghan set out. It is almost better to try to fight for what we want on the political and legislative front. It is not that we do not want it - we do - but it would be a mistake to think that by putting it into the Constitution, we would be doing more than saying this is a value we hold.

When we start looking at Article 45 of the Constitution, we find all sorts of splendid things that we should be concentrating on. People do not take much notice of it because it cannot be fought in the courts. I agree with the Deputy O'Callaghan about the subsection of Article 45 from which he quoted, but it is doubtful that we are willing to embark on a referendum to take the word "sex" out of it. We have to remember what we use the Constitution for. If we are going to include a clause relating to the value of care inside or outside the home, we should use that almost as a directive, similar to Article 45, to persuade the political parties and Independents as they come up that this is a policy they should be aiming for. I am afraid that in such circumstances, we would have to keep fighting on the ground to get the actual legislation and the actual expenditure that is looked for.

Photo of Donnchadh Ó LaoghaireDonnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I would like to make a few points in response to that. As Mrs. Justice McGuinness has suggested that the difficulty with including a provision of this nature in Article 45 is that it might well be disregarded as all the other parts of Article 45 have been. I am trying to understand whether, as far as Mrs. Justice McGuinness can see, it would be the case that if we were to adopt a wording like that proposed by the Constitution Review Group, there would be no obvious cause of action. I know that is not the argument she is making, but it is a fair suggestion to make?

Photo of Caoimhghín Ó CaoláinCaoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

When Mrs. Justice McGuinness has finished responding, I will bring in Ms Cox.

Mrs. Justice Catherine McGuinness:

I am sorry, but I did not quite grasp Deputy Ó Laoghaire's question.

Photo of Donnchadh Ó LaoghaireDonnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If the proposal of the Constitution Review Group were included in the Constitution as an alternative wording, or if something in that general vein were included to make this section of the Constitution gender-neutral, would there be any obvious cause of action, from Mrs. Justice McGuinness's point of view, that could be taken? Given that there have not been many successful actions on the basis of the current provision, it might seem that no obvious case could be taken on the strength of such a wording.

Mrs. Justice Catherine McGuinness:

Yes, I think that is true. People can always find a cause of action if they are really determined to do so.

Photo of Donnchadh Ó LaoghaireDonnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

Mrs. Justice Catherine McGuinness:

I do not think one can ever say that there will never be a cause of action.

Photo of Donnchadh Ó LaoghaireDonnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I understand that.

Mrs. Justice Catherine McGuinness:

I do not know whether Deputy O'Callaghan would agree with me about that.

Photo of Caoimhghín Ó CaoláinCaoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I suspect he would.

Mrs. Justice Catherine McGuinness:

When we took the L&L case under Article 41.2, we made the argument in court that the woman should own half of the family home. We argued that the provisions of Article 41.2 relating to the value of a woman's work in the home should mean actual money or possession in the hand. We were met with a kind of cold dismay by the Supreme Court for suggesting that. Mr. Justice Barr had given us half of the family home in the High Court, but that was overturned completely by the Supreme Court. We can try to think of what would be a cause of action. Of course it would be possible for someone to say in a case that this is stated in the Constitution. Such a person would have to be sure that he or she was trying to claim something concrete - some actual benefit - rather than asking whether we are supporting carers properly. For instance, one can claim in equal pay cases that one is establishing whether it is equal pay for equal work and that kind of thing. One cannot make a sort of generalised claim. One has to find an actual plaintiff. When the Supreme Court is asked to decide whether an article is effective, it much prefers to do so on the basis of a specific case with a specific plaintiff. It does not really like vague referrals. I just do not see that happening.

Photo of Caoimhghín Ó CaoláinCaoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I call Ms Cox.

Ms Catherine Cox:

I will go back to what Mrs. Justice McGuinness said earlier about whether we need practical legislation. I believe we need both. I believe we need to keep this in the Constitution. We need to recognise and value the work of carers. Of course we need practical legislation. The Government is currently drafting legislation on a statutory entitlement to home care, which will support that. Mrs. Justice McGuinness mentioned the need to be careful to give great consideration to what we are doing and to get good advice. I believe all of that to be the case. We can still do that while keeping an amended version of this section. We can get all the advice before we amend. If we delete the relevant section now, the recognition we have now will be deleted.

Photo of Caoimhghín Ó CaoláinCaoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is Deputy Ó Laoghaire okay with this?

Photo of Donnchadh Ó LaoghaireDonnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, I am.

Photo of Caoimhghín Ó CaoláinCaoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does the Deputy have further questions?

Photo of Donnchadh Ó LaoghaireDonnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have two more questions. I would like to pick up on an aspect of the Family Carers Ireland presentation that I may have misunderstood. Mr. Dunne and Ms Cox seemed to express the view that if this section of the Constitution is removed, it is possible that some other element of the Constitution - presumably Article 40 - could be the basis for an amended provision.

I am trying to find the passage I was thinking of. Does Mr. Dunne believe-----

Mr. John Dunne:

That it does not have to be enumerated to be-----

Photo of Donnchadh Ó LaoghaireDonnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I was looking for the passage from the presentation. Does Mr. Dunne believe that if this was to be deleted it would leave a vacuum that might be filled by a court at a later stage?

Mr. John Dunne:

No I do not believe it would leave a vacuum. I am simply trying to answer a concern that, frankly, I find a bit over the top, namely, that changing this provision in the way suggested by the Constitution Review Group will led to a floodgate of claims. We do not anticipate that and I said as much in my submission. Mrs. Justice McGuinness is also saying this. There is no conceivable way. There was a suggestion at the end of that discussion that it be subject to legislation. I believe, however, that would be redundant in the context of the way the State and the Constitution work. I just do not believe that it would be needed. We do not envisage it.

The idea of someone going in and saying "I collect my sister from school every day and I bring her home and give her tea and biscuits until our mother comes home from work so I want a carer's allowance" would be laughed out of court. We would be laughing along with everybody else because that would be a nonsense. The State's answer is that it has limited resources and they are concentrated a certain way. I cannot imagine any normal person in Ireland going with that.

I shall provide the Deputy with a different scenario, which is not a socio-economic right and which is relevant to this committee. The Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act 2015 will be commenced some day next year. On the day it is commenced wards of court will cease to exist. The State has given itself three years to work out the current wards of court into the new system. On the day it commences every family carer in Ireland will be cast into a legal limbo until such time as they can register through the courts as an appointee under the system. We raised the point - which we thought not unreasonably - that if the State was giving itself three years to do that then how about giving carers who have been caring for perhaps 18 years already three years to also do it. The answer we received was "No, that would be against the spirit of the legislation because while parents are wonderful we all know that you cannot trust them all." That is a situation where one might have a question on whether we are really valuing care in the home if that attitude is being taken.

Mrs. Justice Catherine McGuinness:

Yes, I see Mr. Dunne's point.

Photo of Donnchadh Ó LaoghaireDonnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have just one more observation on the proposal. I understand the logic but I suppose it is the realities of this institution and democracy in Ireland. I would be hesitant regarding a two-part process where we delete and then try to come up with a de novoprocess for coming up with a new proposal. While constitutional change has accelerated in recent years there is only so much bandwidth for referendums and for these institutions to process additional proposals. It is my view that there is no urgent rush with this. We would like it to be expedited but I would rather that this debate was as comprehensive as possible, that some process followed on from these committee hearings and that we can develop a comprehensive wording - or a wording that satisfied people. I would be concerned that the second part of that process could be lost, or if it was removed then perhaps one would not get around to putting in anything on foot of it.

My other point is tangentially related and I put it to any of the witnesses but to Mrs. Justice McGuinness in particular. With regard to Article 40, is there room for further rights to be found? Do we as the Legislature need to do more to consider what are social and economic rights? Aside from whether this is or will be justiciable, do we need to do more to consider further social and economic rights?

Mrs. Justice Catherine McGuinness:

If one went in for having social and economic rights enforceable through the Constitution perhaps as things are at the moment one might consider having a right to housing.

Photo of Donnchadh Ó LaoghaireDonnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I would agree with that.

Mrs. Justice Catherine McGuinness:

We need to look at the way other constitutions in other jurisdictions work such as the constitution of South Africa, for example, in which Mr. Kader Asmal - who was long here in Ireland - played a big part in drafting. He had experience of the Irish Constitution when he lectured in Trinity College Dublin on law. I was a student of his at one time. They put a right to housing into their constitution and to an extent it was enforceable in that the Supreme Court in South Africa directed certain ways in which the money that was to be given to housing was to be divided by the Government. To a degree there was an enforcement of a socio-economic right like that.

We are used to what is called the common law system, as I am sure the Deputy is aware, which is basically in Britain, in Ireland and in many countries that were formally British colonies such as Australia and Canada and so on. Canada would be the nearest to having a constitution that would enforce certain socio-economic rights. That would be Canada and South Africa. To an extent it has been effective. Provided one had a Supreme Court that was willing to move in that direction something like that might be achieved.

What concerns me is that the division of power is such that the Supreme Court itself will decide whether or not it is going to enforce socio-economic rights and it is not for us to decide that. Generally we have not done that. It is difficult because to try to embark on that means that one is directing the Government how it spends taxpayers' money. The taxpayers themselves might not be all that appreciative of the idea of a set of lawyers sitting up there, who have no skin in the game, directing how taxpayers' money is going to be spent. The tradition is that politicians are responsible for that, and it is a very responsible task that takes a great deal of thought. Members themselves know how difficult it is.

Members could always look at parts of Article 45 that might inspire them if they wanted directions in which to go. I was going through the Constitution - as the question was raised - and Article 45.2 states, "That the ownership and control of the material resources of the community may be so distributed amongst private individuals and the various classes as best to subserve the common good." It might give rise to some thought, even in a country where it appears that the difference between the wealthy and the poor is growing. That is nothing to do with what I was supposed to be talking about; I am just being evil.

Photo of Caoimhghín Ó CaoláinCaoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

But Mrs. Justice McGuinness used the opportunity well. Deputy Ó Laoghaire has noted it very well too.

Photo of Donnchadh Ó LaoghaireDonnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have.

Ms Catherine Cox:

In the Constitution currently we have a right to primary education, which looks at positive socio-economic rights. That has served us well in that it has been used reasonably and appropriately. There is precedence there for something such as this. Again, we should not run from those risks; we should examine them.

Photo of Lorraine Clifford LeeLorraine Clifford Lee (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I apologise for missing the first half of this session. I was in the Seanad speaking on a matter but the contributions I have heard from this committee have been excellent. I thank the witnesses for that. I have read other contributions also. I was very happy to hear that the approach being taken is to not pitch different groups of women against each other. I strongly believe that the only way we are going to achieve real equality is by working together for our common good and the elevation of all women in Irish society and the world, so I was very glad to hear that.

I have a brief comment before I pose questions. With regard to the cleaner approach being the deletion of the article, one could say that about every article in the Constitution.

It would be much cleaner for everybody if most of them did not exist so I do not consider that to be a basis on which we should proceed. I come to this with an open mind and am listening to the contributions. I will weigh them up, discuss them with my colleagues and decide our approach then.

This is my question to any and all of the witnesses. We could change the language in the article to be gender neutral and remove the economic element, which would serve the purpose of recognising the value of care, and that would then remove the public expenditure element, since we are afraid of creating economic rights and taking that public expenditure role away from the Oireachtas. Would that be enough to elevate the status of care? If we are to have this article as a persuasive point, for the witnesses to use to lobby us and for us to use to lobby the Government, would it be enough to neutralise it with regard to gender, remove the economic element and have this debate in the Oireachtas, with a discussion of care on the airwaves and in the campaign? I think it is very hard to say.

Ms Pauline O'Reilly:

It is hard to say-----

Mrs. Justice Catherine McGuinness:

I do not know if I am the one who is supposed to answer that.

Photo of Caoimhghín Ó CaoláinCaoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Mrs. Justice McGuinness is not getting the first bite at it this time. She may respond in a moment. Mrs. O'Reilly has taken up the cudgels.

Ms Pauline O'Reilly:

Any of us would say that we would like it to be "shall" rather than "endeavour". I would see it, much as the National Women's Council said, as a proper debate with a deliberative process which would involve civil society groups and not be something on the airwaves. I do not want to go down that route. I have worked outside and inside the home and do not want this to become a media frenzy. We have to look at all of those issues and it should be a deliberative process. I think there should be hearings by the Citizens' Assembly to work out the wording rather than us working it out here this morning.

Photo of Lorraine Clifford LeeLorraine Clifford Lee (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Would Ms O'Reilly's organisation be happy with the removal of the economic element if we were to keep the article in the Constitution rather than deleting it entirely?

Ms Pauline O'Reilly:

We have not taken a position on that so I do not want to say one way or the other. There should be a broader discussion over a longer period. We were not expecting that there would be no pre-legislative scrutiny so we were taking a longer view on it. That is what we would like to do now.

Photo of Caoimhghín Ó CaoláinCaoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Would Family Carers Ireland like to reflect on that point? It is interesting.

Ms Catherine Cox:

Yes, it is interesting. We said we would support the words, "the State shall endeavour to support persons caring". Having said that, we would much prefer the wording, "the State shall support". Nevertheless, we are willing to be reasonable. If the State gives a commitment to endeavour to support persons caring, it would brings us further. We do not want to remove the support element. We want to keep that and we want recognition but we also want support. We are willing to accept the phrase, "endeavour to support".

Mr. John Dunne:

To qualify for the carer's allowance, a social welfare payment paid at a rate slightly higher than unemployment benefit, carers are required to demonstrate that they are providing a consistent 40 hours per week of care for a medically diagnosed condition. One could argue that under this proposed constitutional provision, we could charge in and say that one only has to be providing five minutes of care. I am happy to point out that this is not where we are coming from. I assume any state would argue that the wording, "shall endeavour", is an unreasonable claim. It could be argued that the requirement to provide 40 hours of care should be reduced to the average working week. In principle, however, the State has the right to regulate how it will manage its finite resources. There is no question that it must do that. This is as much about the symbolism of removing a provision from the Constitution. If it was not in the Constitution, we would be having a very different debate about whether it would be worth inserting it. Our biggest concern is the sort of message we will send if we remove the provision.

Ms Hilda Roche:

We are of like mind. I agree with Deputy Ó Laoghaire that the debate needs to be as comprehensive as possible in order that we can come up with a workable new wording. We would also be satisfied with the wording "the State shall endeavour to ensure that carers".

Photo of Caoimhghín Ó CaoláinCaoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Just as the initial focus was on Mrs. Justice McGuinness, I invite her to make a further comment before we revert to Senator Clifford-Lee?

Mrs. Justice Catherine McGuinness:

I do not know that I should add anything. I take the point being made about the removal of one phrase and leaving nothing in its stead. That is a point which the Oireachtas will have to consider carefully because it seems valid to me. With regard to what Deputy Ó Laoghaire said, one can phrase something in such a way that it might imply that the State should be giving financial support without making it so directive that it would go outside the usual constitutional framework. Many things in the Constitution imply expenditure, such as the article that refers to providing for education. One has to bear in mind the difference between providing education and providing for education, which has been a constitutional question. The wording could be adjusted in such a way that it would not be outside a normal framework of constitutional wording but we should not be too scared about implying that the State would have to spend some money.

Photo of Caoimhghín Ó CaoláinCaoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Would Senator Clifford-Lee like to add anything?

Photo of Lorraine Clifford LeeLorraine Clifford Lee (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No. I was eager to pose that question and I appreciate the responses I received.

Photo of Clare DalyClare Daly (Dublin Fingal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank everybody for attending. This has been an excellent meeting. We made the point last week that the requirement for pre-legislative scrutiny was demonstrated very well by those who appeared before the committee. That also applies to today's meeting, which has been incredibly helpful. In that sense, I do not have a many questions because the witnesses made a very strong case and, thankfully, most of them took a view similar to my own, namely, that the provision should be replaced and we should tease out how we should do that.

The first thing that strikes me is what people seem to be saying, that this can be - and already has been for me - a very important values clarification process for Irish society at a juncture when we are maybe evaluating a new Ireland or new family life. In that sense, this could be empowering. The Government has put forward a two-tier strategy. It recognises that we need to move from the past but says we will take the provision out and then discuss the future. The witnesses are saying that even by doing that, we would downgrade the role of carers and unpaid work and place a poor value on it. People may want to discuss that two-stage process.

This ties in with a point Deputy Jim O'Callaghan made when he spoke about a symbolic provision rather than a meaningful one, although he probably did not mean it in that way. I hear from the witnesses that symbolism is meaningful. While it is not enough, it is not meaningless either. Perhaps the witnesses will address that. If we all agree that something should be inserted in the Constitution, would the witnesses facilitate a mechanism such as the Citizens' Assembly if it was established quickly with a view to doing what has been proposed, or is it too early for that?

A referendum next summer to tie in with the local and European elections was discussed. Do the witnesses think there is enough time to provide for that?

I have a question for the Economic and Social Research Institute, ESRI, regarding the 2005 report.

Its witnesses said it is the only evaluation that has been done of unpaid work, which is incredible.

The witnesses made their point so powerfully that they almost robbed us of decent questions so I will make a comment instead. We are only valuing paid economic activity and unpaid activity is not given its place, even though it has huge value. Is there any more research on the subject? Mr. Dunne said we were unique in not recognising the carer role. Can he explain what he means by this? The Minister would put it differently. He would say it would be unique to recognise it, which is opposite. All the witnesses highlighted what we need as a society and what our values should be as regards putting care work on a parallel footing to other activity. I am confident that, based on what they have told us, we will meet the six-month deadline next year but I am curious about what others think.

Photo of Caoimhghín Ó CaoláinCaoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will ask each witness to reply to the questions that were put to them.

Mr. John Dunne:

I am completely opposed to a two-stage process. We have lived with this wording for 80 years and we can live with it for another one or two if it means we get it right. As somebody once said, it is about "events, dear boy". It would not be credible to do a repeal simpliciter and then sit down to talk about what we are going to put in. I agree that symbolism is not nothing, and this is the key message we are trying to get across. I was asked if the process could be dealt with quickly but I am less exercised by timing than I am about getting it right. The Constitution is the way to approach it. I have heard other people say that, while it can be done, it is ambitious. My experience is that these things take a bit longer when one is trying to bring people along and build a consensus. Rather than fixing a timeframe and finding that one is running out of time, it should be allowed to run.

Other research on unpaid work, namely, the health survey, was carried out by the CSO in 2016. That rather blew our socks off. It was a sample study of activity but it was very detailed. It found that 355,000 people in Ireland were providing a minimum of 40 hours per week of unpaid care. That was the first such study and we are looking forward to the second. It takes a good sample so it should be reasonably reliable, though we would want to see a trend before banking on it.

Photo of Clare DalyClare Daly (Dublin Fingal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is another one due?

Mr. John Dunne:

I do not know.

Ms Catherine Cox:

There is none due in the short term.

Mr. John Dunne:

I was asked about uniqueness internationally. A typology has been developed in the European Union. Scandinavians tend to put the primary responsibility on the state but there is a downside to that, because a person who is worried about his or her mother can be told to go away because the state is looking after her. It is a bit of a caricature but there would not be much appetite for such an approach in Ireland. Throughout the rest of Europe, the state primarily relies on, and recognises, the role of the family. The German system is driven by compulsory insurance so one pays for one's care in old age. If someone does not have children, he or she pays a higher premium because the state recognises there will be nobody to help to look after him or her. In Estonia, it is written into the constitution that the family has primary responsibility for "antecedents", that is, parents. They have just begun to relax this but, up to now, the state has said it was a family's responsibility and the state had nothing to do with it. If people have living children or other relatives, the state will do nothing and will only look after them if they are completely isolated. On the other side of the coin, there is the Portuguese system, under which the state depends on families for caring. The state recognises that it is in its interest to help families with caring and that it would fall over without them.

At least 80% of care in Ireland is delivered unpaid. Someone in receipt of carer's allowance gets it in lieu of unemployment benefit. The former Department of Social Protection accepted the point we made a few years ago that it is not in the State's interest to force carers out of the home to take up paid employment, because it would then have to backfill with paid services. Being paid, therefore, does not include getting carer's allowance, though even carers sometimes get a bit confused by that and say they are getting money from the State. For us, paid work is performed by homecare workers and carers in the family home are unpaid, whether they are getting assistance from the State.

I can send the committee information on the international position. There are five models and five systems but we are unusual in that nowhere in legislation, or in the Constitution, does it say what the respective roles of the State and the family are. Our argument is that it is a partnership and that should be captured somewhere as a fundamental statement, by which we mean putting it into the Constitution.

Dr. Frances McGinnity:

Given the fact that the time-use survey was in 2005, it is fair to say paid work is measured on a regular basis in Ireland but care and unpaid housework is much less commonly measured. One step towards valuing it is to measure it. Other countries have regular time-use surveys, in which people fill out diaries of what they do each day. We did this in 2005. The idea was that a large time-use survey for caring and housework would be conducted on a regular basis but the recession came and everything stopped. There is a strong argument for a regular time-use survey to complement the caring survey by the CSO but there is, as far as we are aware, no intention to carry them out at the moment.

Photo of Caoimhghín Ó CaoláinCaoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Would anybody else like to pick up on Deputy Clare Daly's points?

Ms Pauline O'Reilly:

On the question of supporting unpaid work, we may be moving to a situation where labour is automated but caring work will never be automated. There will never be a conveyor belt for older persons or vulnerable adults, whose numbers are increasing, or for children and nor should there be. We are going to have think in different ways about how we support all the valuable work using a smaller cohort of people who are paid for their work.

Photo of Clare DalyClare Daly (Dublin Fingal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The witnesses' responses were excellent.

Photo of Caoimhghín Ó CaoláinCaoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I noted what the Deputy said about the quality of the contributions and that she felt almost robbed of questions. The thought crossed my mind that, in our earlier session this morning, the Minister, who was present, would have loved the Deputy to have said that to him. Unfortunately, it did not happen.

Photo of Jack ChambersJack Chambers (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I apologise for not being here for many of the contributions but I was with a thalidomide group. I will read the submissions but I also have a couple of questions. I came into this meeting thinking that deletion was the right approach but I am open about this and I will read the arguments that have been made. If there was a proposal to delete the current constitutional provision, would any of the groups oppose it on the basis that it wants to go further?

Ms Catherine Cox:

Family carers on the ground would strongly oppose it. They would feel bitterly disappointed and angry with such an outcome. There would be huge opposition to deletion.

Ms Pauline O'Reilly:

We have asked which of the three options was favoured and amendment was the preferred option of almost all our respondents.

I said we needed an amendment, but having heard Mrs. Justice McGuinness, perhaps it is more correct to say "replacement", so that we are not talking about fiddling around with words but about taking something out and putting something in to replace it in the one go. We have not asked and it is not my place to guess the views are of the general population who were inside and outside. However, we know that those who have cared for children are not confined to my generation; they come from older and younger generations. Those who have been cared for probably include many people in this room. It goes beyond our members in many ways. We will all have to guess. When Deputy Chambers was outside the room, I set out that it is a visceral experience if one goes in. One is being asked to weigh up one's values and the two values are important.

Photo of Jack ChambersJack Chambers (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, I know. That is fair enough.

Photo of Caoimhghín Ó CaoláinCaoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Would Ms Canning or Ms Roche like to offer a view?

Ms Hilda Roche:

Similarly, it is not something that we have discussed. If it was just to delete, we would see that not having a replacement would be a wasted opportunity and we would be very much in favour of coming up with a workable new wording.

Photo of Jack ChambersJack Chambers (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is helpful.

Photo of Caoimhghín Ó CaoláinCaoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Perhaps Ms O'Reilly would like to add that it is not within her domain. I can see Mrs. Justice McGuinness out there campaigning.

Mrs. Justice Catherine McGuinness:

I am getting a bit old for street campaigning.

Photo of Caoimhghín Ó CaoláinCaoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Not at all, no.

Photo of Jack ChambersJack Chambers (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

When we had the Minister in this morning, he mentioned a citizens' assembly process following the referendum but committee members will be aware that promises such as that often take a long time. Even with such a commitment, would the witnesses maintain the grounds that it should be replaced?

Ms Hilda Roche:

Yes.

Photo of Jack ChambersJack Chambers (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy O'Callaghan gave some examples of how we would regulate or provide a framework for a constitutional right, whether it should be symbolic or meaningful and how it would be structured. Could the witnesses give an example of what kind of case they would envisage coming before the courts where they would have a meaningful exercise of that right? Perhaps they could give one or two examples of what they see as the positive constitutional change delivering for people who are carers today?

Mr. John Dunne:

I would not necessarily rely on the article for the kind of cases we might consider bringing, either way.

Photo of Jack ChambersJack Chambers (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am talking about if there was a replacement article.

Mr. John Dunne:

I mean a replacement article. This would not apply to a person who collects his or her sister from school, brings her home and looks after her for two hours because the obvious answer from the State would be that it has a scheme and the person does not qualify under its criteria and the Supreme Court would accept that.

Photo of Jack ChambersJack Chambers (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

How does the State regulate a constitutional right?

Mr. John Dunne:

Because the balance is there in the wording, "shall endeavour". The word "shall" creates an obligation. The word "endeavour" creates a qualified obligation and, therefore, all one can do in that situation is bring it to the courts to have a light shone on it. Nine times out of ten, certainly in terms of socio-economic rights, the State will easily assert that it is endeavouring, even if it is not succeeding. It is a weak obligation.

My interest is in administrative law rather than in rights, but when I studied the Constitution, as far as I was concerned, the Constitution stopped at Article 44. Article 45 was a nice little postscript. It was not part of it at all. From that point of view, it should be in the Constitution proper. As somebody said earlier, the ultimate logic of the alternative position is why do we not delete all human rights because they are all messy and awkward anyway.

Photo of Jack ChambersJack Chambers (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does Mr. Dunne have an example? I take his point that "shall endeavour" means it is qualified obligation.

Mr. John Dunne:

An example I gave was that under the assisted decision-making legislation, if the State wants to put thousands of parents and carers into a legal limbo, I would challenge that on the basis that it is clearly unfair and unreasonable. If Article 41.2 was modified, I might say that it also undermines care in the home. We have situations where someone will go into a home and say there is a big man in a bed and that it takes two people to work a hoist but we do not have the budget for that and go away again. There may well be grounds, where the principle is accepted, that we provide care in the home, but if it is too difficult to provide the care, we will not. That might be possible grounds. These are unusual ones. They are not typical, and it is certainly not about socio-economic rights.

Photo of Jack ChambersJack Chambers (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes. I again thank Mr. Dunne for his contribution. The expected timeline for the capacity legislation is ambitious based on what the officials who came before us said. It seems to be delayed again, which is worrying and of concern to us all.

Mr. John Dunne:

It is a little bit, but the point I was making is that the State, as it tends to do, made generous provision for itself and then threw everyone else to the wolves.

Photo of Jack ChambersJack Chambers (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The delays are a disgrace on that side of it as well. I thank Mr. Dunne.

Photo of Mick WallaceMick Wallace (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am sorry that I missed part of the meeting. I will read the contributions in the Official Report. I thank the witnesses. Ms Roche spoke about a wasted opportunity if we do not do something and put something back in. The contributions have highlighted that it would have been a terrible wasted opportunity if we did not have pre-legislative scrutiny, allowed the Bill to proceed and ended up with a referendum on 26 October without any discussion or understanding of what is at stake. We all have a lot to learn but if we do not listen, we will not learn. A discussion in some form of assembly would have a lot to offer.

Photo of Caoimhghín Ó CaoláinCaoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputy. Is everyone happy that he or she has communicated what he or she came to say? I have no doubt everyone has, but I thought I would offer the opportunity in any event. It is fair to reflect. I fully agree with what Deputy Wallace and others said about the decision to have pre-legislative scrutiny. It was the right decision. We thank the Business Committee for the referral. We will now prepare a report. The timeframe is that we will have a draft in a number of weeks. Unanimity will be ambitious but, nevertheless, we will make recommendations.

Photo of Mick WallaceMick Wallace (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will take Deputy O'Callaghan aside and have a chat with him.

Photo of Jim O'CallaghanJim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not have a problem with changing it so it is symbolic.

Photo of Caoimhghín Ó CaoláinCaoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Wallace should not target Deputy O'Callaghan. Without further ado, and before I thank the witnesses, I wish to welcome some people who are in the Visitors Gallery. I thank Ms Caroline Spring from the Department of Justice and Equality for being present. I also welcome both Mr. Eamonn Fahey and Ms Nur Nadiah Binte Zailani from the ESRI. On behalf of the committee, I thank each of the witnesses. It is lovely to have had Mrs. Justice Catherine McGuinness before us during my tenure as Chairman.

Mrs. Justice Catherine McGuinness:

We go back a long way.

Photo of Caoimhghín Ó CaoláinCaoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, we go back a long way. She was in the chair at one time when I had to go before her, not in a court I wish to add.

Mrs. Justice Catherine McGuinness:

No.

Photo of Caoimhghín Ó CaoláinCaoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We were on a peace project.

Mrs. Justice Catherine McGuinness:

Yes.

Photo of Caoimhghín Ó CaoláinCaoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Dr. Helen Russell and Dr. Frances McGinnity from the ESRI for attending. I also thank Mr. John Dunne and Ms Catherine Cox from Family Carers Ireland for their contributions, as well as Ms Joan Canning and Ms Hilda Roche from the ICA. It has been a pleasure having them both with us. I thank the ICA for all its work.

Last, but by no means least, I thank Ms Pauline O'Reilly who spoke on behalf of the Stay-At-Home Parents Associations Ireland. I also thank her colleague, who is also called Catherine, who could not attend.

Ms Pauline O'Reilly:

There would have been three Catherines.

Photo of Caoimhghín Ó CaoláinCaoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, there would have been three Catherines here today. We would never have got through the meeting. I thank them all very much for their respective contributions on this particular matter.

The joint committee adjourned at 12.30 p.m. until 9 a.m. on Wednesday, 3 October 2018.