Bríd Smith (Dublin South Central, People Before Profit Alliance) | Oireachtas source

This is the piece of work with which I have the biggest problem. The Government has done us all a disservice by coupling the deletion of - as I paraphrase it - the woman's place is in the home with the care question. It has done the whole project a big disservice. I say this because I know for a fact that there are already others campaigning to confuse this issue, but also genuinely because the question of a woman's place being in the home, however it is phrased in the Constitution, is one that has both embittered and emboldened many feminists and people fighting to make this country a better and more equal place for women given it is so insulting and so sexist. The history of the Constitution, how it was put together and what happened around it, is quite interesting. There is also a lot of radical history there as well. When it was being written up, as we know, Archbishop McQuaid, as the head of the Catholic church here in Ireland, had a huge input into the construction and the make-up of the Constitution but on this, he demanded that the role of women as annunciated in the papal encyclical, Rerum Novarum, be given constitutional status. This encyclical, not the Constitution, states: "A woman is by nature fitted for home-work, and it is that which is best adapted at once to preserve her modesty." Therefore, what we get in the Constitution is:

2.1^oIn 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.

2.2^oThe 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.

My first job as a young worker in the 70s was in the library service of the city council. At that stage, every professional librarian or assistant librarian I worked with, worked under, and met, was unmarried and would have been described insultingly at the time as spinsters, but when you got to know them, they were great women and professionals. The reason they were not married or in a relationship was that had they got married they would lost their profession. They would have been forced by rules of the public and Civil Service to give up their jobs. Therefore, the marriage bar was highly destructive in respect of the lives of women and in respect of State services because it meant that really good people either left or were forced to live life in a different way than they would have wanted to in order to stay in their professions. It is fantastic we are finally getting rid of that. However, having coupled it with the question of care and not given the citizens of the country a chance to vote for these two matters separately, and I asked the Minister about this on previous occasions both at the briefing and here in the House, it is a big mistake not to decouple them because it would then be so easy for everybody to say "Great, vote "Yes" for that" but consider their options on the amendment on care because it is really important.

Deputy Bacik has gone through the various organisations that worked hard on this, swallowed a hard pill,and accepted in good faith that it is a step in the right direction. However, there is a "but", and it is a big one because family carers and carers outside of the home are treated so badly by the State. The State says it. We recognise that this care "gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved". It is good that the Constitution states that but the State does not give that support. I was a member of the former Carers Association at one stage and I cared for my Ma for about six years and I know so many carers who do not even get respite. They get the money for respite but they cannot get away to get out of the situation they are in. Some of them are minding two or three members of a family, sometimes in very difficult circumstances. The State is not providing for them. The Minister's amendment states the State "shall strive" to support the provision of care but what does that mean? He and his colleagues are in government at the moment. I have a low opinion of them on many issues, which I raised this morning. However, this is a Constitution that has to be both a document and a weapon for the citizens to ensure the Government lives up to the mark on a very minimum of actions for them. The Minister could say to me, or the next - God knows what Government we get - could say it strove but failed. "Strive to" holds the Government to nothing, neither legally nor constitutionally. I remember having this discussion with the Minister before and he said we could not be doing that and holding Governments to that sort of commitment in the future. You absolutely can and should. Here is another reason we should. The Minister is a member of the Green Party. If we are looking to try to amend the future as best we can to save the planet and the environment, we are going to by necessity of pulling back on the fast, over-consumptive way we live, design a future economy and a different type of way of living. It is written all over the new European Green Deal, throughout Naomi Klein's books and in all our aspirations that our societies need to become more focused on care and that means that our economy is structured to train and employ more people who engage in care to look after those who engage in care and give them the best possible life. There is absolutely nothing in an economy more important than care, unless the Minister wants to tell me that there is. I do not believe he thinks going to the moon, for example, is more important than care. Care is fundamental to any decent civilised society and, therefore, we have a real problem with that clause and have striven to amend it here. We will continue to strive to amend it and will continue to work with the NWCIl, One Family, the Access for All group and everybody who advocates for a real recognition of care by the Irish State.

This is a missed opportunity and it will probably be another generation before there will be another opportunity to change it. The language is too vague. It is insulting to carers. Many of them are looking at this and saying they cannot vote for it as it is insulting when they spend every day of their lives getting up and doing all the things they have to do. I am not going to go into the details of how people live but they live hard lives and they do not get remunerated properly or the space or supports to take sufficient breaks away from that sort of life. This is even within the family, never mind outside the family where amazing care work is done by NGOs and non-official bodies within communities. That is not properly recognised either. Interestingly though, when it comes to the right to private property, the Constitution is very explicit about holding the Government to a particular position. Article 43 guarantees that the Government will pass no law "attempting to abolish the right of private ownership" or property. If that clause is there for private property and this vague insulting wishy-washy clause is there for care, that shows the priorities of the Constitution are, and will continue to be, skewed.

In fact, one could argue that that provision on private property in the Constitution has been a barrier to proper rent controls, banning no-fault evictions and many things that should be done by this Government and this House to make life better for people. The decoupling of these things is a missed opportunity. I have moved an amendment to change the words "strive to" to "shall". That is definite language providing that this must be done. Others may say it is too strong and strident but we want to be as strong and strident as possible to say to the Minister and anybody who is listening that the most important thing in our society is how we care for each other physically, mentally and emotionally. That needs to be delivered and supported in full by this and any future governments.

See this speech in context