Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I always start by thanking Sinn Féin for bringing forward a motion and I do so again tonight. I am also grateful for the opportunity to speak. However, my gratitude stops there because the elephant in the room is being ignored. Many TDs and the Ministers have spoken about the upcoming referendum, which is taking out two parts of Article 41 and replacing it with an entirely new article that gives absolutely no enforceable rights. It confines caring to within the family and it seeks to recognise the care that family members give to one another by reason of the bonds that exist between them. I cannot describe anything weaker or worse with no enforceable rights. Even worse than that, it seeks to replace two parts of Article 41. Again, I describe myself as a mother, a female TD and a rabid feminist but I will take away the word "rabid" and say "feminist". We look at this article which is all of the time being misquoted and I find myself in agreement with Deputy Murphy. It states "the State recognises that by her life within the home, [she] gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.". That refers to "woman". In the second part, it goes on to say "The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers [so we have "woman" and "mothers"] shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home." Do I agree with those words "to the neglect of [her] duties" outside the home? I do not. Do I agree that it is specific to mothers and women? I do not. What has happened here is that an article with a concept that is excellent, namely, that no mother should be obliged to work outside the room because of economic necessity, is having a line put through it and it is being replaced with waffle that gives no enforceable rights. Worse than that, caring is put within the family and the State obligation is ignored. It is truly shocking and disingenuous and that all the parties have bought into this is beyond my comprehension.

There have been various entities that looked at changing this Constitution in the past. The one in 2006 was the one that appealed to me most. There have been many proposed changes since 1993. In 2006, if the Minister cares to look at it, it was suggested that those words would be replaced with "parent". My preference would be for "mother or father". We should keep that with modern language without a reference to duties, while recognising the importance of parents in a home and the parental work that they do. A parent's work is not the same as a carer's work, although of course they overlap. I refer to what the Minister should have done. I hope this goes down on Friday, not to score points with the Government but in order that we can come back and change that article. We can keep the obligation that no parent will be obliged to work outside the home and separately insert an article that really gives rights to carers and recognises the importance of carers for our society and the billions of euro they save the economy.

I will finish by looking at the Supreme Court case that is pending and of which the Government was fully aware. It made arguments in the High Court against the mother who has to go to court because of what Sinn Féin is now talking about, namely, the carer's allowance that is means tested. As quickly as I can, the case involves a young man who has Down's syndrome and epilepsy with epileptic seizures and who suffers from autism spectrum disorder and developmental delay. He suffers from hypothyroidism, hyperactivity, behavioural issues and repetitive head-banging, which is a condition that must be distressing. I am running out of time. His sleep is also chronically affected. The High Court judge who held against the mother stated she was quite satisfied that it is enormously demanding to care for this man and that the reduction of the full rate of carer's allowance by €85 per week has had a profound adverse affect on the first applicant and caused significant personal and financial strain to her. Bun agus barr an scéil, the High Court held against her. She was on a reduced carer's allowance because it is means tested and her partner earns. The Minister is bringing in a constitutional amendment and he is ignoring this. The case has gone to the Supreme Court. What has the court said? It has allowed this mother to skip the Court of Appeal and go straight to the Supreme Court because she raises issues of such importance. I will quote precisely, so I am not accused of over-exaggerating. It stated "The court further notes that the present case raises issues of systemic importance for the carers of severely disabled children". This mother has to fight the whole way to the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, she has a difficult case because it is on regulations. However, she raises Article 41, the very article the Minister will remove if the proposed change is successful on Friday. If that article is removed, I do not know what the Supreme Court is going to do regarding that because the case is partly based on the article that gives rights. I will take my chances with the court regarding the modern interpretation. As Ms Justice Susan Denham said 23 years ago, as did the former Supreme Court judge, Mr. Justice Barrington, and as many other judges who recognised that no suitable case has come before them in relation to the direct effect of this article, which has surprised them, they will interpret it as a father or a parent having no obligation to work outside the home.

See this speech in context