Eamon Ryan (Dublin Bay South, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

I take that back. I believe it needs to be changed. The Leas-Cheann Comhairle outlined the history. In 2018 I remember the Dáil at the time said at the last minute that we would just delete the article. Several political parties advocated for that. We fundamentally disagreed and said that if we delete and do not replace, then we will not recognise the caring work that goes on in families across the country. That would not be acceptable.

There is diversity in caring work. It is about how we raise our children and families, but it is also about how we care for our elderly in the home. Care happens in a variety of different areas. It is appropriate to give some real recognition of the home and family in the Constitution.

Anyone with experience of how our State works knows we need to provide greater support and value the endless, vital and precious caring work that happens for people with disabilities in our country. We need to change the Constitution to ensure it is not sexist but also leaves the family the choice of the best way to do things. We need to provide for the alternatives that people choose. The State must not be judgmental or centre stage. Families are best placed to decide on the most appropriate caring arrangements. We need a range of different supports. We need to recognise in particular caring work at home because it tends to be forgotten and is not part of the economic paradigm in many cases. That is why the amendment is critical and why we have to get a Yes vote.

Others have said we need to go further. Deputy Harkin said we need to provide for an obligation on the State. It is a very attractive prospect, but our Constitution is not necessarily the best place to cover all the obligations we have to support families in a variety of different ways. Our Constitution cannot go down to that level and take the job of what a democratic constitutional Oireachtas has to do, namely allocate the State's limited resources taking into account the Constitution.

The Constitution cannot write the budget for us. In many ways, if we do that and allow the Constitution to take over the job of the House I do not think the Constitution would have done what Minister O'Gorman has done, such as cut childcare costs in half. Others have said we need to back up this with further actions. We do. We need to recognise pension entitlements for people who have worked in the home. I could go on. We could recognise disability, the ability to get respite and a range of other measures which are part of the family care that is needed. I do not think we can constitutionally deliver the budget in any amendment. Our key job is to set a value and clearly direct and push the Government towards recognising the importance of care. I believe the wording does that.

Deputy McNamara referred to the word "endeavour". In truth, over the history of the State that word has not led to the legal system taking decisions that would interfere in the State because the Judiciary is sensitive about the separation of powers and realises it cannot become the budget operation. We would like to think that at some stage over the history of the State the word would have had legal effect but it has not. The Deputy asked about the Government's choice of wording. It was deliberately picked to send a signal that we need to go further.

A cursory glance of the Internet and listening to the debate brought me to the definition of the word "endeavour". It means, try to do something, make an effort, make an attempt, strive, make great effort, devote serious effort or exert ourselves vigorously. Deputy Harkin said that in the European Union the term "strive" is recognised in stronger language. In proposing the wording, the Government is absolutely sending a signal about the need for a greater imperative for care, in particular in the home, which tends to be forgotten. That is why I will be asking people to vote Yes.

Every single family that has a disabled child, every single lone parent family currently not recognised in our Constitution and every family caring for elderly people or raising children in whatever way they decide need this wording to value and support that work. That is the reason to vote Yes in both cases.

See this speech in context