Roderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Chair and all the Deputies for the detailed consideration they have given to the two amendments before us.

It is important at the start to restate the overarching aim of the proposed constitutional amendment, which is to update the Constitution so that it reflects our values as regards equality and the recognition of the valuable role both women and men play in all spheres of public and private life. That is done through removing the references to the woman's life and duties in the home and recognising the immense value of care and the support family members give to one another, which is a foundation for solidarity and cohesion in our society and creating an express obligation on the State to support these care relationships. It is an express obligation, and I will come back to that.

A number of Deputies raised the issue of the breadth of the proposed new Article 42B and particularly the location of care in the family. The family is the cornerstone of society because of the mutual care, strength and support family members give to one another, a care and support which is often constant and often intensive. That care is absolutely fundamental to our society. It is the Government's position that it is right to recognise it as a public good and that we commit to the State supporting it. This is care which families give to one another. It is unique. It has an essential characteristic and is the core to nurturing our children and allowing each of us to reach our full potential.

The work of people who provide care in the wider community is also hugely important to Irish society. Paid care workers and care enterprises provide important supports to unpaid carers. However, it would present a significant anomaly to identify and enshrine the rights of one cohort of workers and potentially their private sector employers and private commercial enterprises in the Constitution. That said, while paid care workers do not fall directly within the scope of the amendment, support for family care currently often includes paid services, such as through respite, personal assistant, PA, hours and home help. This amendment expresses a strong commitment by the State to support a robust care infrastructure because the care that takes place in the home cannot take place without the supports the State provides, such as respite and PA hours. Through the express obligation on the State to support family care, there is a recognition of investing in the professional care system, which wraps around and supports families.

A number of Deputies spoke about the language and the use of the term "strive". The terminology used was given extensive consideration by the Government and the phrase "shall strive" was considered to most accurately reflect the policy objective of supporting family care while also giving room to the Oireachtas to make the laws allowing for that. Even Deputy Bacik recognised that when the special Oireachtas committee sat, it was never its intention to enshrine an explicit right to care. It was a recognition of care and what level of obligation is placed on the State. In using the term "strive", the Government's intention is that the wording reflects a requirement on the State to make a serious, sustained effort to support family care. The use of the word "strive" includes a recognition that the achievement of that takes place over time. It is done progressively and through continual improvements. The courts will have a role to play in interpreting this, as they will in any changes that are made. However, it is important to say that the language used in the use of the mandatory term "shall" indicates that the Government clearly accepts that an obligation would be placed on the Government and on future Governments to strive to support care in the family.

If the Government did not want to create an obligation, there were options. The new article, could have been put in Article 45, the directive principles, which the courts are not allowed to touch. The Government could have just brought forward a proposal to remove Article 42 and put nothing in, and that was on the table a number of years ago. The Government could have suggested the recognition of care and left it at that. It is important, as we are amending the Constitution, to remember the language.

The State recognises that the provision of care, by members of a family to one another by reason of the bonds that exist among them, gives to Society a support without which the common good cannot be achieved, and shall strive to support such provision.

Those last words were added consciously because we want to place an obligation on the State. I am sorry that Deputy Connolly is no longer here. After speaking in great detail and with great passion on the role of care and what it does in society, she suggested our language is wishy-washy. She is entitled to her position on that, but I see something else in the language "gives to Society a support without which the common good cannot be achieved". I do not accept her description of that language. It is a clear statement of intention as we have in our Constitution, followed by the placing of an obligation on the State that it must strive to support such care. This is not a symbolic amendment. Every amendment to our Constitution is meaningful and the Government is clear that it is intended that the amendment recognise the unpaid care that is provided by immediate and extended families. The care and mutual support family members provide to one another is fundamental to society. The use of the term “shall” places an onus on the State and it was consciously chosen.

Deputy Sherlock brought us to a discussion of the Irish language text. He is probably far more proficient in Irish than I am, so I have taken some advice on that. The term “teaghlach” is the current term used in the Constitution to refer to the family and it is correct that it can mean family or household. However, the wording for the Irish text was carefully developed by the Attorney General’s office and by Rannóg an Aistriúcháin, which is the Irish language service. It is clear that the policy intention here is to refer to family. As we know, "teaghlach" is the word currently used in Article 41, the proposed new text of Article 41 and in the new Article 42. I recognise there are other Irish language words but to use them would probably have created a greater degree of ambiguity.

The aim of the proposed amendment as set out in this Bill is to remove the archaic and sexist reference to a woman’s place in the home. To come back to Deputy Connolly’s point, I say again with the greatest respect as I always value her contributions, she suggested a world where potentially Article 42 could have provided benefit. She suggested that world could now be brought forward and it could provide benefit to women and men, even though the language clearly states women. It could potentially exist. Everything is possible, but that is not the experience of 80 years of living under Bunreacht na hÉireann and 80 years of the current Article 41.2.

It has never provided benefits to women in this country up to this point. We are proposing to amend it to provide language that is gender-neutral. In bringing forward this amendment the Government and the State are recognising that a clear obligation is being inserted into the provision of the new Article 42B. Personally, I think it is better to take that than the potential of possible future Supreme Courts giving the current Article 41.2 a life it has never had before and giving an interpretation of men and women to a provision that right now very clearly says women. I think what the Government is proposing is preferable.

In this debate we have discussed the original resistance that was expressed in the 1930s to the language of Article 41.2. We have discussed the efforts that have been made over decades to change it. We have a proposal before us now - recognising that the Bill has to go through both Houses – that deletes the wording that is of concern but also replaces it with something meaningful. It is a meaningful recognition of care within the family and a new obligation on the State to support that care. I think this is a positive change. I think it is one that will bring benefits to families going forward. I commend the Bill to the House.

See this speech in context