Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, RISE) | Oireachtas source

I support our amendments and the others that go in the same direction. I am disappointed, if not surprised, by the extremely limp wording proposed by the Government to replace this section. Having such poor wording, which is correctly open to strong criticism, as we will make, not only misses an opportunity to make a meaningful difference for carers in this country, but also endangers this referendum and the prospect of removing the odious women in the home clause from the Constitution. I appeal, even at this late stage, to the Government to listen to the Opposition and to all of the progressive campaigning organisations that are urging it to take this opportunity to insert something meaningful on carers into the Constitution. The wording the Government has proposed is, and is being perceived as, an insult to carers, whether they work inside the home as family carers or outside it providing care to children, older people and people with disabilities. Earlier on, Deputy Bríd Smith outlined, extremely eloquently, precisely how important care is and she outlined the need for a society that is based around care and which elevates care, as opposed to taking care as free or significantly underpaid labour, overwhelmingly done by women.

In People Before Profit we are in favour of the removal of the backward women in the home clause. It is a disgrace that it has stayed there for so long and it is a testament to how cowardly and conservative all of our Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael-led Governments have been. This is a country that voted for marriage equality and repeal and we still have this ridiculously misogynist clause in our Constitution. What is a disgrace is that the Government has bundled up getting rid of that clause with approval for its proposed new wording on family care. As has been pointed out, it could easily have proposed two separate referendum questions to give the decision to the people: one to delete the women in the home clause; and another to insert new language obliging the State to provide the necessary resources to support care. Instead of that we have a dangerous sleight of hand by the Government trying to force people to accept its wording on family care by tangling it up with removing the awful language on women in the home from the Constitution.

The Government has not been behind the door about why its language is so weak. The Taoiseach and other Members of the Government have been quite up front in the House and in the media in saying they do not want to put new rights for people into the Constitution that would be meaningful because that would give people new rights and would cost this Government and future Governments money. They say it would tie the hands of future Governments by way of a change to the Constitution. They seem to think that would be a bad thing to do. Recognising the work of carers, whether inside the family or outside the family, putting it in the Constitution and obliging future Governments to recognise that, respect them and ensure they are paid properly, would be a good and meaningful thing to do. It points in the direction of the sort of Constitution we should have, one which contains meaningful rights for people, including the right to a home, for example. Instead it appears the Government has told its lawyers and the drafters of this proposal to make sure they come up with wording that will not place any new obligations on the State to support care. They do not want to be obliged to: employ care workers directly; fully fund childcare; provide a decent standard of living for family carers; or legislate for paid leave for workers with caring responsibilities. That is why we have ended up with this extremely mealy-mouthed waffle that the State will "strive to support" care provided by family members only.

There is a scene in "The Simpsons" where Bart Simpson is asked to do something and he says "I can't promise I'll try, but I'll try to try." That is effectively what the Government's wording of "strive to support" is. It is a meaningless phrase and it is designed to be as meaningless, in practical terms, as the women in the home clause has always been, in the reference to not having to engage in work outside the home and so on. That clause never meant that women would be paid wages for housework. There was language in the Constitution about women not being forced outside of the home by economic necessity but it never resulted in any financial benefit to women who were in the home and it was part of a reactionary, right wing, Catholic and authoritarian vision of women's role in society. The new clause will not be of any financial benefit to family carers either, most of whom are women, as well as excluding carers outside the home entirely.

All the women of Ireland are getting from this referendum is as follows. We will get rid of the women in the home clause; that is correct, we support that and that is what we want to see done. However, then we get a more modern, more up to date and paternalistic pat on the head delivered right on time for International Women's Day. Where did International Women's Day come from? It was established by socialist women, women like Clara Zetkin, who dedicated their lives to fight for meaningful new worker's rights and political rights for women, like the right to vote, to hold public office, to an eight-hour day, and to a five-day week with paid holidays and maternity leave. In stark contrast, we have this Government and its lawyers staying up late nights, drafting this wording, to ensure it is as meaningless as possible in granting new rights to people.

We in People Before Profit, with our amendment, are doing the opposite. We are putting forward wording that would oblige the State to provide the necessary resources to support care, regardless of whether it is provided inside the home by family members, or outside by paid care workers. That is the least that carers deserve. It is also what the citizen's assembly thought when it voted, overwhelmingly, for the women in the home clause to be, "deleted and replaced with language that is not gender specific and obliges the State to take reasonable measures to support care within the home and wider community." There was nothing in that about striving to support family care only. It wanted all care to be properly supported and so do we.

See this speech in context