Roderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

As I will continue to argue, it is far more robust than Article 41.2 which has achieved absolutely nothing for mothers or anybody else in our society.

On the use of the words "care" and "carers", this was done very deliberately because there are two or more people in any care-based relationship. Using the word "care" reflects the view of many disability advocates who had expressed concern about any approach that would suggest a hierarchy where the carer is being valued over the person receiving the care and support. The joint committee recognised this, which is why, in the wording of the new Article 42B as proposed in the Bill, the term "care" is used. That recognises the mutual, reciprocal nature of care and support which is so important within the family.

Speaking of family, it is important to note that in the new Article 42B the word "family" is not capitalised because we are making a distinction between it and the constitutional family we discussed during our previous debate on Article 41, as set out in the guard rails in the Constitution. The "family" referred to in Article 42B is a much wider network. It is a network of extended family and we know that in many caring situations it is not members of the immediate family who are providing the care relationships. It might be a son-in-law and it is often a daughter-in-law. We have deliberately chosen the uncapitalised use of the word "family" in Article 42B to ensure it benefits as wide a category as possible.

The work we are doing in making this constitutional change has to be part of an ongoing piece of work. The vast majority of the tangible benefits for carers will be delivered through legislation and policy. The Government has made strides in those areas and will continue to make strides. The next Government will need to continue that work. In terms of supporting the care decisions of parents, this Government has reduced by 25% the cost of childcare and will reduce it by another 25% in September of next year. It has ensured care workers are better paid through the mechanisms I spoke about earlier. It is addressing those children who are most vulnerable in our system because they have a disability or come from areas of high socioeconomic disadvantage.

It is extending the access and inclusion model and it is bringing in the new equal participation model to ensure those who are most vulnerable get the supports they need. This Government has already expanded leave so parents have more time to engage in their caring role. Parent's leave, for example, has gone from two weeks per parent when we came into office up to seven weeks now and it will be nine weeks later on this year. Medical care leave has been introduced. Increases in carer's allowance will apply from this month. As a number of Deputies have outlined, the Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Humphreys, has brought in important changes to the pension system in recognition of the importance of caring periods, with up to 20 years of caring periods recognised.

Within my own Department, on the issue of disability, which moved over to it just short of a year ago, we have set out a clear disability action plan, recognising that as a State we do not do enough in terms of respite, day services or residential services. We also recognise that we have a huge demographic challenge in that area and we set out the steps that we are going to achieve, which we started to achieve in budget 2024. The Minister of State, Deputy Rabbitte, and I are both very cognisant that more needs to be invested into those areas. Supporting respite and day services is an immediate support to carers. Of course there is the ongoing work taking place in my Department to ratify the optional protocol as well.

Deputy McAuliffe asked the reason we picked a new constitutional article and why we did not put what we are doing here within the existing Article 41. That was discussed in significant detail. The Attorney General gave us significant advice on it. Ultimately, the approach adopted supports the broader recognition of the family care as supporting both immediate and extended family members. There is a concern that to have located what we are doing here within Article 41, which deals with the family, it would have been seen as only applying to the constitutional family which as we know is a narrower concept.

Speaking to the language used and the use of the word "strive". Deputy Whitmore said it is the language of the status quo. I strongly disagree. The status quolanguage that is in Article 42 at the moment is "shall endeavour". That is the language that has delivered nothing for anybody. Even as Deputy Connolly said, if the courts were to miraculously read "mothers" as "mothers and fathers", which is a huge interpretative leap, the wording "shall endeavour" has not actually delivered anything in terms of tangible benefits. The use of the term "shall strive" introduces a clear obligation newly entered into by this Government, which I hope the public will support in this referendum by the State. In using "shall strive", the Government is introducing a brand-new article with a clear mandatory obligation. This is a significant change that has legal value and legal meaning.

A number of Deputies have put forward the idea that the State does not want this amendment to achieve anything. If we did not want to achieve anything we could have just put down a delete, like was done in 2015. We could have just proposed to delete Article 41.2 and do nothing else. If we did not want a legal obligation, we could have put the language in Article 42B into Article 45, the non-justiciable piece of the Constitution, where it would have looked nice but would have had no legal benefit. However, we did not do that. We could have put in the recognition of care but without the onus afterwards but we did not do that. We have put in a recognition of care but we have also put in an onus and mandatory obligation on the State by using the term "shall strive" and that puts a very clear obligation on the State.

I will wrap up by responding to Deputy Connolly and others who have set out the history of this particular article, Article 42, and the efforts to change it, and the history of efforts to bring about an interpretation of care and a recognition of it. On 8 March we have the opportunity to change the outdated language within Article 42, and to show in our values that care is a job for everybody - mams and dads, daughters and sons. Most importantly, as well as that values piece, which as someone who feels passionately about the Constitution is really important to me, it is not just a values issue, it is also a legal issue because we have that clear legal obligation that the State "shall strive" to support that care. That is not in our Constitution right now. This is an important innovation and it is one that I believe is worth supporting.

See this speech in context