Joan Collins (Dublin South Central, Independents 4 Change) | Oireachtas source

I am not a barrister or a solicitor in any shape or form; I am a lay person. I thank the members of the Citizens' Assembly on Gender Equality for the time and effort they took to produce such a comprehensive and progressive report. The report is certainly a lot more progressive than the Government's proposed amendments. I welcome most of the measures in both the 39th and 40th amendments. I have lived with my partner for 35 years. It came to my attention only during the Covid pandemic that my name was on the house and that I had to make a will to the effect that, if I died before my partner, my spouse would not have first call on the home and that person would be able to stay in the home. I was very startled by the fact that I had to do something like that in respect of our home. I therefore welcome the 39th and 40th amendments. This is an obvious letdown for carers in Ireland, but these measures with regard to the family and a woman's place in the home should be welcomed.

We should not be too self-congratulatory. Parts of our Constitution are not just archaic but wrong. The vast majority of people have recognised that they are archaic and wrong for a long time. I saw two quotes from Mr. Éamon de Valera, one about "the laughter of happy maidens" and the other about "the life that God desires that men should live". They were the two quotes that struck me in the context of the Constitution of 1937. These referendums will be far past due.

We must also keep in mind that simply removing or amending parts of our Constitution is not good enough on its own in the context of the deep and horrific miseries the State, hand in hand with the church and other sections of society, has inflicted on women in this country. These are not just outdated parts of our Constitution; they are legal justifications that saw generations of women and men terrorised and oppressed. It is not good enough just to remove them and forget. The State owes a great historical debt to the women and men in this country, and there is no use simply playing around with words if that debt is never repaid. Thousands of women and men still feel the effects of the State's treatment of women not just in terms of history but in the massive role the State still insists on playing in women's lives through controlling the provision of women's healthcare. Any constitutional change must be accompanied by both removing the final controls from women's lives and bodies and addressing and repaying the State's historical abuses. This Government has consistently refused to do that. The sealing of the mother and baby home records and the redress scheme, which is a disaster for survivors, show just how serious this Government takes its responsibility to address the State's historic and current role in controlling women's bodies and lives.

This includes, by the way, the rest of this Bill. Some 98% of full-time carers are women. Some 98% of childcare staff are female. The hourly wage of childcare sector staff is 43.5% below the average national wage. Almost 80% of childcare workers do not have sick pay. Some 90% of childcare workers do not have a private pension. Some 65% of childcare workers do not have paid maternity leave. If the huge role women play in providing care, both paid and unpaid, in Ireland is not recognised, valued and supported, we are ignoring the reality of women's lives in our society. This is the most obvious problem in this Bill: the failure to recognise the reality of care work in Ireland. There has been a significant pushback in the restriction of the wording to only "recognise" care that takes place in the family. That does not reflect the reality. It does not follow the recommendations of the citizens' assembly or the joint committee on gender.

I listened to Deputy Verona Murphy's points about women in the home. I believe it is a right for a man or a woman to stay at home, to have the economic liberty or freedom to do so and to mind children if they want to do so. However, because of the pressures in society - the cost of housing, the cost of living and everything else - many couples are forced to go out and both work and then pay huge childcare costs, up to €1,000, as it would have been, to put their children through crèches. I knew many couples where one parent decided to withdraw from work and stay at home because it cost less than actually paying out childcare fees. I have serious concerns that this is an attempt to limit the Government's duty to carers in this country. The citizens' assembly explicitly recommends that carers should be recognised in both the family and the wider community. This is a direct recognition of the care work that takes place outside of the family through community groups, volunteer work and a massively undervalued and underpaid care industry. The joint committee shared this view, even if it refined the wording. Why does the Government not do so, and what is the point of having these citizens' assemblies if the Government can simply pick and choose what it wants from their recommendations?

The other obvious problem in this Bill is the use of the word "strive". I have a serious problem with it in the context of the amendment on care. The citizens' assembly used the word "oblige". The joint committee used the words "take reasonable measures". The Government took one step away from its responsibility by using the word "strive". Does the Government strive to protect private property? Does it strive to collect taxes or enforce criminal law? No. It is legally mandated to do it. The word "strive" is a clear attempt to limit the Government's exposure to the real cost of supporting carers. There are 1 billion hours of unpaid care carried out in Ireland every year. The State saves €20 billion a year from that unpaid work. It is clear this amendment is designed to keep the Government off the hook for as much of that €20 billion as it can. That is what the word "strive" represents. Why do carers deserve only a State that strives to support them and not a State that does its job and actually supports the thousands of people doing important paid and unpaid care work in this country? What really matters is the practical implications of these referendums. Are they an attempt to remove outdated wording from our Constitution and simply carry on business as usual, or is this an attempt to actually build a fairer, more equitable society? The majority of the changes these amendments will make to the Constitution will not matter if they do not result in building a better, more equitable system for those who give and receive care and if we do not take a serious look at how we are repaying the terrible debt owed to women in this country.

I share the concern about the word "durability" in the Thirty-ninth Amendment of the Constitution (The Family) Bill. I also have strong views on having the referendum on International Women's Day and I share the concern Deputy Connolly raised earlier.

I was born in 1961 and I have vivid memories of my mother over a sink washing clothes. Then we got the tumble dryer and the wringer and it was a brilliant. It was a step forward. I still see those big duvet covers going through the wringer. I always remember vividly my mother being very annoyed that she never had her own financial independence. That is why I want to see a change in the Constitution. We need our financial independence. Every man and woman needs that to be able to have that equity. That said, that financial independence has to be protected and should be protected by law such that people in this country are paid well and are not on low pay.

See this speech in context