Clare Daly (Dublin North, Socialist Party) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Acting Chairman for the offer of extra time. I might take a little of it but I noticed the Minister was a little touchy yesterday during the criminal justice debate and I have no wish to delay him from his lunch. Therefore, I will try to be as brief as I can.

While listening to the debate from my office earlier, I heard a good deal of commentary from the Government benches which I can only describe as patronising claptrap. I am unsure how many women from Darndale or Moyross are on the Constitutional Convention but I imagine not too many. There is a whopping discrepancy between the lofty aspirations we are hearing from the Government benches and the reality for women as a result of the consistent cutbacks the Government has embarked upon. We have seen evidence presented in study after study showing that the brunt of the Government's cutbacks have fallen on the shoulders of women. How can women possibly participate in public life when they bear the burden of the most expensive child care in Europe, when they work in a scenario whereby their wages are still less than 80% of those of men, when older women are more at risk of poverty than older men and so on? I will not bore the Deputies with the details; the information has been well-flagged and highlighted. We must have a sense of proportion and consider this in reality.

There is a huge gulf between equality and reality when the Government is pursuing a policy of austerity that disproportionately affects women and that, in fact, exacerbates inequality. As long as these issues are not tackled, we can have all the aspiration we like but it will make no difference. Like other Deputies, I imagine, I receive calls every week from women who cannot get rented accommodation because landlords will not take rent allowance, from women whose partners have left, perhaps, who are struggling with a mortgage they cannot pay and who have to deal with the children and all the other pressures that come to bear. First and foremost, we must put the issue in that context.

Let us consider Article 41.1.1º and Article 41.1.2º. I believe these should be removed and that is what we should be looking at. I note the comments made by the Constitutional Convention linking them to the issues of carers and so on, but that is being somewhat politically correct or trying making it gender-neutral. That is a separate issue. Let us be clear: the intention of Article 41.1.1º and Article 41.1.2º was to limit the role of women and mothers in society. That is what they were designed for. They should never have been included in the first place and we should take this opportunity to get rid of them.

I reject the idea that Article 41 reflected a more conservative time. I simply do not believe that is true. We have seen the commemorations under way at the moment for the Lock-out and the phenomenal role played by women workers, in particular laundry workers, and so on in the Lock-out and the struggle for independence. It is clear that women played a very real part in the struggle. In 1922, a great many rights for women were enshrined in the Constitution. We know that Countess Markievicz was one of the first female Ministers anywhere in the world. It was not the case that women fought for their rights, which of course they did, but that there was an unusual situation in Ireland whereby many of the rights which women had in the early years of the State were subsequently rolled back on and taken away by successive Government legislation. This is evident from measures such as married women being banned from working as teachers, that ban being expanded into the Civil Service subsequently, the prohibition on women serving on juries and the situation whereby the Minister had the power to restrict the number of women working in certain industries and so on. That was a conscious process by the State that culminated in the Constitution of 1937, which firmly put women in the home. At the time, the newspapers reported that the reason for this was the Government of the day wanted to ensure women would not be wrenched from the bosom of their families, from their cherished household duties and from the preparation of their husbands' dinners. Clearly that was written by people who never had to wash clothes in cold water, try to keep a tenement clean or keep their children fed when there was no money to go around. That view was rooted in an ideology which did not see women as citizens but was, in part, more about keeping women out of public life.

True equality means the recognition of difference. Women are clearly different from men, most particularly in the area reproduction and so on. Therefore, supporting children and mothers is a key road to follow in dealing with equality. While dealing with these issues economically is the most positive step forward, as a signal and an ideological statement, the removal of these provisions from the Constitution would be a far greater step in the direction of egalitarianism, recognising people as citizens and recognising that the nature of the family and home life has changed forever. We should support people to enable them to be economically independent and to live the lives they choose in whatever family formation best suits their needs.

See this speech in context