Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I mean that in the most complimentary way with regard to the incisive nature of the arguments the Deputy puts forward.

In the context in which we are discussing this legislation, if we take the census of 2022, there were 299,128 people providing regular unpaid care. That figure had increased by more than 50% since 2016. We cannot ignore the fact that there is a whole series of categories of people who are providing care for those who we all represent. Much of the everyday work we do as TDs involves advocating for them or the people for whom they care.

The Government's position on this change to the Constitution is characterised by what I would call a very slow, incremental, conservative approach. The hallmark of constitutional reform in this country, sadly, has been slow, conservative incrementalism, save for maybe in latter years.

There was a giant leap forward in relation to the equality agenda but this constitutional reform could go much further. It could be much more radical to reflect where we are as a society. That opportunity has been missed. The Labour Party amendment and similar amendments before us seek to push out the envelope to reflect the fact that there are now more than 299,000 carers in this country who could benefit from the wording proposed in those amendments.

Just as we had much discussion on the definition of "durable relationships", I suspect we will come back to the word "strive". It is nebulous and does not place on the State any obligation whatsoever to provide supports. I strive to get out of bed every morning. "Strive" is an anodyne word. In terms of legislation, constitutional reform and constitutional wording, it is meaningless as regards placing any enforceable obligation on the State to provide supports. That is why we are seeking to amend the legislation in a reasonable way to ask that we take reasonable measures to support care within and outside the home and family. I do not see why the Government cannot accept the amendment given that, de facto, embedded within our polity and across Departments is the ethos of providing payments or supports for a range of carers in any event. The Government should put it in as a right, including outside the family home, and be a bit more adventurous, progressive and radical. That would chime well with the people and send a signal that this is a progressive Government which wants to effect meaningful change.

See this speech in context