Ivana Bacik (Dublin Bay South, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister for the very full response. I think he has given us some helpful insights, particularly into the rationale for the wording chosen and for moving the clause into a new article 42B. That is certainly very helpful to hear, but just taking up that last point about "strive" or "endeavour", there is not much between those two words. I would say again that the wording that the Oireachtas joint committee unanimously agreed is in fact preferable to either "strive" or "endeavour" because we said the State shall therefore take reasonable measures to support care. We were using the mandatory language of "shall" and placing a much stronger action requirement to take reasonable measures to support care while being mindful, as the citizens' assembly was, of the need to ensure the separation of powers and that this does not in any way tie the hands of the Executive. Catherine Day told us that the citizens' assembly was very clear about that when it came up with the phrase "take reasonable measures". I still think that wording is preferable to either "endeavour" or "strive".

Second, on the point of who is covered, it is helpful to hear the Minister confirm that the family in Article 42B is an expanded understanding of family, beyond that of the family in Article 41.1.

It is, therefore, not confined to a unit founded on marriage or other durable relationships. It could cover the partner of a son or daughter, as the Minister said, but it will not cover somebody who provides care as a friend; that is clear. It will not cover somebody who provides care through charitable or voluntary organisations, through Meals on Wheels or community groupings that are not professional. I take the Minister's point; he does not want to confer constitutional rights on private companies. However, many forms of care are provided that are not provided on a commercial basis but are not provided within a family, however expansively defined, either. That is perhaps the missing piece. Time and again during our extensive committee hearings, we heard from older people, disabled persons and persons who receive support and care from a whole range of different carers in a whole range of different settings and the concern was that an exclusionary definition of care would not provide sufficient valuing of the immense work that carers do, both paid and unpaid, voluntary within the family and within friend groups. That was our concern in coming up with the definition that we came up with, which is reflected in our amendment.

See this speech in context