Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I have seen in some quarters this referendum being referred to as a referendum on the woman's place in the home and the fact that having such a provision in the Constitution is a backward notion. Of course, that is not what the Constitution states. It states:

In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.

The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.

As a society, we have moved from protecting a woman's ability to rear children and to have a life in the home because it is now economically a necessity for many women to go to work. Many of those women would otherwise prefer to be at home spending more time with their children as they grow up and develop. We have a situation in modern Ireland where many parents, both mothers and fathers, have to leave their children off with childminders, childcare facilities and possibly strangers who often get to see their children more than their own parents during the day.

The reason for this is that it is economically necessary for both parents to work. The child may be in a crèche from 8 o’clock in the morning until perhaps after 6 o’clock in the evening. I am sure many women across Ireland would love to be able to have more time in the home and more time with their children in their key formative years but who just cannot afford to do so at the moment. Rather than campaigning to remove the provision from the Constitution, should we not be examining why our society has moved so far from this ideal?

The mother in the home is a value that is appropriately recognised in the Constitution. It is very disappointing that the proposal seeks to remove that very recognition. Many groups are trying to frame the part of the Constitution in question as some kind of old-fashioned measure or chain around the ankles of Irish women. I look upon it as something very different. I see it more as a protection for Irish women than a burden. Call me old-fashioned – I do not know.

In previous referendums, it was easy to identify what would change in practical terms. I have mentioned this already to the Minister today. After we debated the Thirty-ninth Amendment of the Constitution (The Family) Bill 2023, the Minister said there was room for interpretation within constitutional legislation and always would be. However, language should not be so subjective that, when interpreted, it is completely different to what someone’s expectation might be. When we hold referendums and look for a Yes, we need to be able to discern what the language means to bring the people with us. In 2015, a Yes vote meant same-sex marriages would be legalised. Everybody knew then what voting Yes meant. In 2018, we knew by voting Yes that abortion would be legalised, and in 1996 we knew that a Yes vote would see divorce legalised, but the same cannot be said for this proposal. We really do not know what difference the change will make. At least, I do not. I do not know anybody who can tell me for definite what will happen if there is a Yes vote. I do not understand how the proposal would change the Constitution or make any difference.

The referendum wording proposes to insert a reference to family care in the Constitution. When the Government was formed in 2020, it produced the programme for Government and therein included a reference to a pension solution for carers. I have raised the pension rights of carers on this floor many times. We are three and half years into the lifetime of the Government. Although a limited pension solution for carers will be introduced in January, it falls a long way short of what I believe the Government had hoped for. It will allow people who have been caring for 20 years or more to have some contributions towards their State pensions. However, what about the solution for someone who has been a carer for only 19 years and who may have gaps in caring? Surely, we need to develop a system to allow those with any amount of caring to have the corresponding contributions allocated to them. Full-time carers of loved ones will not be able to rack up as many PRSI credits as people working full-time.

We need to see an option to reduce the number of credits from 1,040. In every other area, it is 520, but we have required 1,040 credits for carers to access the contributory pension. The Government will, or at least should, have records of who has been receiving the carer’s allowance over the years. I hope this presents a possible solution to how we can deal with credits. I ask the Minister to consider this because it will probably be far more beneficial to people who have been carers than changing the Constitution. I do not see how what the Minister is proposing will make any practical difference daily to the lives of carers. They do play a very important role in society. I am not referring solely to the fact that caring keeps carers’ loved ones in the home environment where they want to be but also to the financial benefit of carers. The Minister knows I have spoken many times about what it means to keep someone with a profound disability in the home and be paid as a carer over what it costs the State. There is a disparity of hundreds of thousands of euro. Keeping someone at home could mean a saving to the State of €300,000. Being able to access credits for a pension entitlement is very limited payback for that type of care. We would be better focusing on that.

I am not sure about the language or why we are now in such a hurry to get this referendum across the line and vote on it on International Women’s Day, 8 March 2024. I fail to see why. The wording is not constructed in a way that will be successful, as far as I can see. I am sure we will have the amendment Stages but I ask the Minister to consider a better option regarding the pension.

See this speech in context