Paul McAuliffe (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

In the debate on the last amendment, we talked about red herrings representing a real challenge to the making of amendments. One of the other challenges will be getting people excited about this referendum. Many people, when discussing it with them, will ask what difference it will really make. They often say that what the existing language implies is not what happens in Ireland now and that it is just old language in the Constitution. Irish people are incredibly proud of their written Constitution. Looking at other countries that do not have one, we value ours, mostly because it is the people's document. It is a living document that has changed over the decades. The Irish people, when they have been allowed to have a say, have made progressive, forward-looking decisions.

I think about this clause and the archaic language.

People will say to us "sure none of that really impacts women today anyway, does it?". The reason it does not is because of women in this House and outside it who campaigned in many previous decades to make that clause, which was always wrong, look obsolete on the basis of extending rights elsewhere, such as employment rights and rights in social circumstances.

The Minister is right. Our Constitution is also about the values we have and, therefore, of course it is correct. On any initial reading of the Constitution by anybody, that clause always jumps out as something that is fundamentally out of step with our society and has been out of step for many years, so it is entirely appropriate to remove it from the Constitution. On that test, what we have put forward achieves that. Many people fighting for additional rights relating to gender equality for all those years would have seen that clause as a symbolic interference in the extension of rights to women and its removal is also symbolic.

Something else happened in the introduction of the citizens' assembly to the process. The citizens' assembly took that nugget of the provision where there should be no economic necessity relating to providing care. The nugget that was discussed by the citizens' assembly and expanded on by the joint committee discovered a desire to constitutionally protect care. We used a different process and by using a different process, we also discovered a desire by the broader public as reflected in the citizens' assembly to constitutionally protect care. It also said that we would constitutionally protect care inside the family and care in the wider community.

In the discussion on the previous constitutional amendment, the Government made a very positive and affirming decision to redefine the family; being perhaps more positive and affirming than even the joint committee. Regarding this constitutional amendment, we have gone for the most minimal intervention, which will be disappointing for many people who wanted to see care enshrined in the Constitution. We saw it when we went into consultation. When our wording was put out for consultation, they came back and asked us to extend it and for it to be expanded.

The Minister will say that he had a job, which was to implement the recommendations of the citizens' assembly, and the genesis of this debate was about removing this offensive clause. Mission completed; that has been done. If this passes, nothing we have said here today should be used in any way as an excuse not to vote for this constitutional amendment. We should repeal and remove the current wording. It is out of step, so nothing in this debate should be used as a reason to vote "No" and I would encourage people to vote "Yes" on the wording put forward by the Government.

However, we have not necessarily grasped the opportunity to define care more broadly in the Constitution. Perhaps this was not possible within this current process and perhaps it is not possible within the current mandate of the Government but there is unfinished work there in terms of a broader expansion of care. What it does do is provide recognition of the unique care given within a family. We still have unfinished business in that area that can be dealt with outside of constitutional circumstances. We treat care very differently. If an aunt fosters a nephew or niece, a level of financial contribution is made by the State but if a child cares for his or her parents, there is a very different form of financial support. In fact, it is means tested and depends perhaps on the employment of his or her partner and so on.

Removing this reference is a very positive step. It satisfies the mission that was given and is important. The proposal also recognises care within the family and the Government could still put forward a number of legislative amendments that would more fully reflect that. In particular, the Minister for Social Protection could look at how she could do that. There is unfinished work here for this Government or future Governments in terms of seeing how care can be better reflected in the Constitution.

I have two technical questions to finish with. We were concerned about introducing the term "care" into the Constitution. Was there any discussion between the Government and the Attorney General or within Government about defining care and what might mean? It is a new term in terms of the Constitution. What was the reason for inserting it as Article 42B, rather than leaving it where it was?

See this speech in context