Erin McGreehan (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

The Minister is welcome to the House to discuss this Bill. I very much welcome it. It is important that we modernise our Constitution. The proposed new article is a continuation of the previous article and proposes to extend what the family means, lay down the importance of the family unit and acknowledge the differences in our new modern families. We will extend what care means and what activities are going on in homes and families around the country. It acknowledges ungendered care and what care by everybody in the family unit involves.

There is some commentary on the remarks from one judge that the article never hindered her. Thankfully, I have been able to achieve what I wanted to achieve in life. I have not been prevented from fulfilling my ambitions. However, we have to consider what the article means. I looked up what former Chief Justice Susan Denham said. Of course she is absolutely right; the article never stopped anybody from going out to work and a woman from achieving her goals. However, she had privilege and was able to get her education and become a judge. Her family was able to encourage her.

In my family, there were no opportunities for education. Women were told there was no point in finishing school. They were told they should get married, have their children and stay at home, and fulfil our Constitution which refers to life within the home. Women were told to stay there and not to neglect those duties within the home. Any mothers here for this debate are neglecting our duties in the home. I am not at home making the tea for my boys because I am here. Obviously, I am not prevented from being here by the Constitution but the article is about what it says about this country. It states that a woman's life is within the home. The article does not give us anything. We have court cases to prove that the woman's life within the home provision did not provide any constitutional protection when a woman was denied any rights to her family home by the Supreme Court.

I find it difficult to take comments from mainly men who have said women were not affected by this article. I do not buy that. People are affected by the article. I have been affected by it. It is wrong. I think of my mother, granny and aunts who were prevented from having opportunities like I did. Think of what the State would have been if a woman's life was not consigned to her life within the home. In our Constitution, the woman's life is within the home. The article does not state that her place is in the home. Rather, it states that her life is within the home and that she should not neglect her duties. I am paraphrasing, but that is in the psyche of our nation.

On Twitter, I asked for a "Yes" vote. It is amazing how threatened some men are by the fact that a woman's life will not be shackled to a life within the home. I received gendered abuse, insults and private messages just because I called for a "Yes" vote and do not believe that a woman's place should be shackled or outlined by the Constitution as being in the home.

There are men up and down the country who provide care within the home. That valuable work should be acknowledged in the Constitution. Their work, love and attention should be acknowledged in the Constitution. We should embrace the fact that the State has moved on. Men are embracing their roles as fathers, carers and minders in their homes. They pick up the kids with their scrapes, do the school runs and all of these things. When I was growing up that never happened. There were never any men at the school gates. Our world is changing. I hear a tut from over in the corner, but this is my reality. The truth is not a lie.

If you were a woman who was not from a privileged background and did not have an opportunity to have an education or were not able to pay for education you did not achieve anything. I do not buy the suggestion that the article did not affect women and the policies and laws of the State over the past 100 or so years. This change is a proper move forward and catches up with our society and country.

In his closing remarks I would love if the Minister talked about care outside the home, in particular people who are striving for independent living. . A lot of DPOs are supportive of this amendment but they want to hear from the Minister. He is very aware of this. They have spoken to me about the Minister's forward thinking on this. He did not have an opportunity to speak on the floor of the Dáil about how support for people with disabilities fits into the Constitution, how their lives will be improved and how we will acknowledge the care the State should be giving to them in order to provide them with independent living in their own homes. How do we reconcile that with Article 19 of the UNCRPD? The Minister's Department is the lead Department for the UNCRPD. I would love to hear from him and his Department how this referendum, coupled with the work he is doing and which we are constantly pushing the Department to do, interacts and will progress the rights of people with disabilities.