Mattie McGrath (Tipperary, Independent) | Oireachtas source

On behalf of the Rural Independent Group, I will outline our amendment, which states:

AN SCEIDEÁL 1. I gCuid 1, Leathanach 6, líne 5 go 8 a scrisadh an méid soe a leanas a chur ina n-ionad:

“Admhaíonn an Stát go dtugtar taca don Chomhdhaonnacht, ar taca é nach bhféadfaí leas an phobail a ghnóthú dá éagmais, de bhíthin cúram a bheith á thabhairt ag daoine de theaghlach dá chéile toisc na snaidhmeanna atá eatarthu, agus beidh an Stát ag dréim le tacú leis an gcúram sin a thabhairt. Mar sin de, déanfaidh an Stát iarracht a chinntiú nach mbeidh ar lucht cúram teaghlaigh obair a dhéanamh de dheasca géarghá eacnamaíochta ag neamartú a gcuid oibre sa bhaile,”.

agus I gCuid 2, Leathanach 6, líne 12 go 14 a scrisadh an méid soe a leanas a chur ina n-ionad:

“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. The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that family carers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their work in the home.”.

I move amendment No. 1: SCHEDULE

1. In Part 1, page 6, to delete lines 5 to 8 and substitute the following:

“Admhaíonn an Stát go dtugtar taca don Chomhdhaonnacht, ar taca é nach bhféadfaí leas an phobail a ghnóthú dá éagmais, de bhíthin cúram a bheith á thabhairt ag daoine de theaghlach dá chéile toisc na snaidhmeanna atá eatarthu, agus beidh an Stát ag dréim le tacú leis an gcúram sin a thabhairt. Mar sin de, déanfaidh an Stát iarracht a chinntiú nach mbeidh ar lucht cúram teaghlaigh obair a dhéanamh de dheasca géarghá eacnamaíochta ag neamartú a gcuid oibre sa bhaile,”.

and

In Part 2, page 6, to delete lines 12 to 14 and substitute the following:

“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. The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that family carers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their work in the home.”.

The amendment to the Constitution proposes to delete the current wording of Article 41.2. It states that women's work in the home is important to everyone and that the Government should try to make sure that mothers are not forced to work outside the home because they need money, ignoring their responsibilities at home. The article does not limit mothers' choices but instead puts responsibility on the Government to support their choices, irrespective of whether they choose to work in the home. This means that the Government should help those who want to work at home but feel they have to work outside of the home because they need financial remuneration.

Perhaps the language is old-fashioned and suggests that people believed in the 1930s that men did less housework than women. It might also reflect the views of the time that accepted the rule preventing married women from working in public jobs. We all remember that. We are all dealing with cases where people have lost their stamps and contributions and cannot make them up. It also reminds us of the traditional Christian view of the family where the man is the head of the household.

Even though the Government has not fully met its responsibilities under this article, many mothers still feel they have to work outside the home because, as I have said, they need money rather than because they want to. This is not a reason to get rid of the article. It could be argued that things like doubling the tax allowances for married couples, maternity leave and child benefit payments show that the Government is trying to meet its responsibilities under the article, even if it is not doing enough.

We certainly do not agree with Orla O'Connor from the National Women's Council of Ireland when she said that Article 41.2 shapes our lives, our society and how we value women. It does not. Mothers and other women who work outside the home are not disadvantaged by this article. It does not limit women's choices or how they think.

The only place in the Constitution where mothers are given extra protection is in this article and it places special responsibility on the Government. It did not cause the unfair rule that stopped women from working in public service jobs, laws that promote equality of employment and wider equality for Irish women and families. It supports the idea of making it easier for mothers to work from home.

The suggested changes would replace Article 41.2 with a recognition of reasonable support for care within and outside the home. Describing care in this way could weaken the right of mothers to choose to stay at home and receive financial support from the Government for this choice.

On the surface, this appears to be a noble sentiment which acknowledges the invaluable contribution of family carers to society. However, the content of this section is almost meaningless and will deliver nothing for family carers or women.

The Ceann Comhairle might have noticed that I often wear the carers’ badge. I support the work of Family Carers Ireland. I know what work carers do and the struggles they have. I often talk about the number of children who should be in school, ag dul amach ag súgradh or doing other exploits but are instead at home minding a sick parent or sibling. That is a damning indictment on our society. There are hundreds of those children.

I have spoken to Catherine Cox from Family Carers Ireland. The organisation is supporting the amendment and wants me to support it, which I do not think I can, because it feels that half a loaf is better than none. It recognises that it is not anything like the full commitments it has lobbied for but it feels that if it rejects the amendment, it will be diminished in some way. The Minister is on record for having made a kind of sideswipe at all the NGOs, that they should come out and support this or the gravy train might be turned off. That is not the way he put it. I call it a gravy train but he does not. I hope I am not being unfair to the Minister but I have been told that this is what he was threatening all these people who do the Government’s bidding morning, noon and night, before it, behind it, beside it and among it. It is like a passage from the Gospel. All the NGOs - 36,000 of them which cost almost €6 billion a year - are hijacking democracy in this country.

According to the Census 2022 disability, health and carers report, over 1.1 million people experienced a long-lasting condition or difficulty to varying extents, accounting for 22% of the population. Of these, 407,342, or 8% of the population, experienced a long-lasting condition or difficulty to a great extent. A further 702,215, or 14% of the population, experienced a long-lasting condition or difficulty to some extent. These people suffer. It is hard to get disability payments and they need carers and people to help them. The can get very little care.

The Government pays lip service to carers. Its referendums on the family and care aim to reflect modern life by decoupling women from the burdens of domestic work and caring. In the absence of practical measures to improve the lot of carers, it is no more than lip service. The carers’ associations are asking what will happen if they do not accept this as a first step along the way. They are a long time trying to get this step. While it is a matter for themselves, and I would not try to influence them, they are supporting the amendment because they do not want to go against the Government and believe this is a bit of an effort andtosach maith leath na hoibre. I am afraid we are so long waiting for this tosach maith that beidh muid ag fanacht ar an tosach a lán ama. This is the problem.

Family Carers Ireland, the organisation that represents those who do the heavy lifting, looking after special needs children, the long-term sick and the elderly, claims that the Government has "failed to fully deliver on any of its commitments". I salute Family Carers Ireland and Councillor Richie Molloy from Cluain Meala, a colleague of mine with whom I work closely who is the manager of carers in south Tipperary. I salute all the carers in south Tipperary and all the hard work done by the staff who are limited in numbers.

Family Carers Ireland produced a family carer scorecard for 2023, which rates the progress of the 18 commitments made in the programme for Government. It is depressing evidence that the State's abysmal record of treating carers as skivvies rather than valued workers continues. The Minister must listen to that. He has the scorecard and the programme for Government. He is off in a mad rush pursuing other items on the green agenda. These are very good, active and caring people who need support. Lip service is no good to them.

I could say an awful lot more but I do not have time to do so. Without a marked improvement in support for carers, the new Article 41.2 is shaping up to be just as much a piece of fantasy as the original women in the home clause in Bunreacht na hÉireann. The Government's proposed amendment to the Constitution is a hollow promise, offering no tangible benefits to the carers who are the backbone of our society. That is the kernel of this. The Government will have a hard job convincing people. As Deputy Harkin said, it is what is síos ar an ballot paper and the line that people will read and the aspirations. That is what they see. It is a very limited and hard choice.

I think the Government has got this wrong and is rushing it. We had a meeting of the Business Committee only last Thursday, which leaves limited time to discuss this issue. There was a long lead-in to this. The Government should have looked at it in time and given us more time to flesh it out and debate it on Second Stage, rather than having Second Stage, Report Stage and Final Stage rushed through the House tonight. We should make haste slowly because the outcome has been very dubious, in my opinion.

See this speech in context