Marian Harkin (Sligo-Leitrim, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I will support both the Government's amendments to the Constitution. I will do so with reservations but sometimes you have to look at the bigger picture and the greater good. All my political life, I have campaigned for adequate support for family carers and all that entails. Family carers, I have always said, along with volunteers, are the glue that holds our society together. They allow our societies, as we have constructed them, to function. That should never, ever be taken for granted.

I want to recognise the contribution of many organisations to this debate. From my perspective, I especially want to mention Family Carers Ireland, which is represented in the Gallery today, and to recognise its huge contribution to the debate and its support for family carers.

The Government's amendment is not as strong as I would have hoped - indeed, it is weakish - but it is still a recognition within the Constitution that the Government "shall strive" to support the provision of care. I believe it is not strong enough, but it is not nothing, and that is important. We need to be very careful in the arguments we make in this House today because we could well put many people off from voting yes on these amendments. People need a reason to vote. They are busy, they are getting on with their lives and they have lots of things to do. They need to feel that their vote will matter and will accomplish something. We need to be very careful. We have used this phrase before but we need to use it here: we cannot make the perfect the enemy of the good. What the Government has here is far from perfect but I would consider it good in that context. If we say in this House that this amendment carries no weight for care or carers or that it means nothing, many people watching and listening today will say to themselves, "If it means that little, if it means nothing, why should I vote for it?" They will ask, if there is nothing positive in it, what is the point in voting for it or, even, what is the point in voting? We therefore need to be careful as to what we want to achieve here. If other people were in government, we would have different amendments. They are not in government. The Government Members are in government and they have come forward with this wording and it is either a yes or a no at the end of the day. Those of us who see this as a small first step cannot say it is worthless because it is not.

It is important to state again what this amendment states:

The State recognises that the provision of care, by members of a family to one another by reason of the bonds that exist among them, gives to Society a support without which the common good cannot be achieved, and shall strive to support such provision.

I agree that the words "shall strive" are debatable. "Shall" is strong. I know that because in European legislation it was seen as a strong word to use as it indicates an intent to do something. "I shall" means "I intend to". "Strive", again, involves not just making an effort but making considerable effort, perhaps even big efforts, to do or to achieve something, so "shall strive", in my view, carries weight. Perhaps the issue here, however, is that it does not imply an obligation or a definitive legal commitment. I agree that it does not, and I think that is what family carers would like to have seen: a constitutional commitment to support and protect care and, by extension, family carers who provide vast amounts of care.

What I think would help is that the Minister or the Taoiseach - his Government - would give a commitment to use this proposed clause in the Constitution, if the people decide to pass it, as a basis for delivering a meaningful package of support to carers in the next budget.

I agree with what Deputy McAuliffe said earlier. He said there is unfinished work here. Citizens are very suspicious of unfinished work, and rightly so, because they recognise that unfinished work is very often left unfinished. They do not want to see that and they do not want to be part of it. There is a real burden on the Minister and the Government. If they really want to show that this change means something, the Government will need to show that it is meaningful. It will need to commit to doing that in the next budget. It will need to make that commitment before we vote in the upcoming referendums.

One simple example might be the need to abolish the means test for carer's allowance. One family carer I know very well describes that as the "mean test". It is important to read what is in front of us because that is what we vote on. We do not vote on any other ideas or thoughts. We only vote on what is in front of us. The Minister says in this proposed amendment that carer's contribution gives to a society a support without which the common good cannot be achieved. That is a strong statement, but if the income of a carer's partner is what determines the allocation of carer's allowance, which it does, this does not mean what is written here. I will read it one more time because I think it is really important. If saying that provision of care by members of a family to one another by reason of the bonds that exist between them gives to society a support without which the common good cannot be achieved is to mean something, the Minister needs to give a signal to people that it will.

I believe this new amendment can be used as a basis to argue for proper supports for family carers. I want to see people coming out and voting "Yes" but in my experience of referendums, having been involved in a number, people need a reason to vote. While the words here are not strong enough, they still imply a moral obligation on Government to deliver, but like unfinished business, moral obligations often carry little weight. That is why I am saying that the Government needs to show that the words it proposes to be inserted in our Constitution will mean something and that the Minister and the Government will be the people who will deliver on it.

See this speech in context