Jennifer Whitmore (Wicklow, Social Democrats) | Oireachtas source

That is a conversation we might have outside perhaps.

My proposed amendment is to recognise the provision of care that we see in families, with the family still being the primary caring unit for many. It also seeks to recognise the care provided in the wider community. The Government's wording makes provision for the gender-neutral element, which is obviously welcome and something we will support. However, it still restricts the value of care to the family, making it far too narrow in my opinion. Care is not just something that we do or see in our immediate families. Friends and neighbours with long-standing and well established relationships with us and the people who make up our communities also provide care.

From living in other countries, it is clear to me that we in Ireland have a very different relationship to care. We take it seriously as a people compared with some other countries where I have lived. That can be seen in the fact that we have 299,000 unpaid carers in Ireland. That number has been growing for the last number of years. The wording of the amendment from the Social Democrats is such that it recognises the contribution of these carers. They cannot be ignored in the Constitution and they should not be ignored in this constitutional amendment. The State has too long a history of not recognising or rewarding that care, even though it arguably keeps our national health service operating. It really is the silent partner of the health service in Ireland.

As mentioned previously, the language the Minister used, of "striving to" support that provision, is very weak. Striving to do something is much different from prioritising it and taking action. On Second Stage, the Minister spoke about the value of the word "strive" and the intention behind using it, emphasising that it includes a connotation to this effect that will take place over time. That time has come and gone, however. The language we use in this Bill and in the Constitution should reflect the urgency with which the State will always and should always respond to the needs of those receiving care.

With regard to the section, the Minister said in the previous debate that the wording put forward by the Government allowed for the Oireachtas to "retain the power to define both the types and levels of supports, and the criteria in respect of eligibility for those supports." That translates as the Government choosing the language that most closely resembles the status quo.

Nobody, least of all caregivers, is under any illusion that the Oireachtas is the body with the power to determine the levels of support. If the Government were to allow for it, we could pass legislation in this House that would make the lives of carers and their charges much easier and much more dignified. This constitutional amendment will not do that. It is like running to stand still, unfortunately. Perhaps the Minister will consider what he can do with the wording here. He should take the suggestions from the Opposition as they are intended, which is to strengthen the Bill's overall effect.

We constantly hear Members on the Government benches laud carers. Carers need to see themselves reflected in full in the Constitution. They also need to see the steps from this Constitution to a point where tangible benefits will be visible and actionable to them. That is very important because it is worthwhile to make these amendments and use the Constitution to reflect the Ireland we are in and the progressive country we want. It does not stop there, however. This is a continuum. What we also need to see is a pathway from the Constitution to the point at which it will provide tangible measures that will make carers' lives better. I am interested in hear from the Minister on that.

The language in the constitutional amendment is far removed from what the citizens' assembly and Oireachtas committee recommended. The citizens' assembly and committees are a valuable tool that we use in our democracy. The people who are involved in them put in enormous work and when they do so they want to be certain the Government will take on board what they say and give it the weight it deserves. There is a risk in this instance that this expectation could be undermined. It would be useful if the Minister explained why the wording of the citizens' assembly and Oireachtas committee was not taken on board.

I know that is not usual practice but given that it is not often that we debate constitutional amendments, it would be worthwhile if the Minister provided any legal advice that directed him away from the language used by the citizens' assembly or Oireachtas committee and towards the language he has put forward in the Bill. People could then understand why those changes were made and why that direction was taken. I ask the Minister to respond. I know that is not usual practice but in this instance it would certainly be worthwhile.

See this speech in context