Mary Seery Kearney (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I am grateful to be able to debate this legislation to amend our Constitution. It is an extraordinary privilege to be in the Seanad and to be able to speak to it. I do not believe that this article has inhibited me at any point in my life. I need to say that. I do not believe it needs to be removed because it has been a blockage to me. However, in the past, it has led to assumptions or described particularly traditional positions in Ireland that, thankfully, are no more. Thankfully, we legislated for change and removed the marriage ban. It took us until 1991 to remove the concept that rape could not happen within marriage. There are Senators in this House who are younger than that. There have been traditional attitudes that ascribed particular roles to people and we have long since moved on from that. If women choose to stay at home and the families make the decision that to do so is in their best interests, they are quite entitled to do it. The same is equally true of the man. I am here tonight because my husband is at home and sending me snapshots of the Irish homework. The roles are interchangeable. We have long since moved on. That would be a motivation for change and to ensure that the language of our Constitution reflects the lived reality of our people.

The Constitution uses the term "without which the common good cannot be achieved". I believe there was a positive motivation to that when it was put into the Constitution. It was intended to safeguard and uphold women, and to put a red circle around them. I believe the motivation was well-intentioned although I would not be in agreement with the writer of the Constitution. The Constitution also states that "mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home". I have a problem with that. I do not like it. I think it is sexist language. It is unbecoming to the Constitution of a progressive country and a country that should embrace all sorts of care and reflect those different caring relationships and equality. Our legislation has, time and again, reflected those considerations. Women receive maternity leave because they are the ones who are carrying children. Those of us who do not do so do not get that leave. It is outdated and needs to be deleted. I am content with its replacement by references to care.

I have enormous empathy with disability groups. I know the Minister is engaging and has engaged with all of the groups, and I thank him for that. I know he has set up another meeting with representatives of Independent Living Movement Ireland. We need to clearly articulate that disability groups and representatives are very unhappy with the debate in the Dáil that left them voiceless and with a residual feeling that care is given to people with disabilities or disabled persons, and that they are passive recipients of care as opposed to people with agency and human rights. It is important that we honour that in this House and it does not go unsaid. I would not go as far as Senator Clonan but I understand why there would be a concern. We signed up to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, UNCRPD. We must move on the optional protocol as quickly as possible. That is important and would offer an assurance in the context of this debate. We must ensure the right of persons with disabilities to live independently and ensure that the right of that agency to be exercised is supported. Assisted decision-making and many other things suggest we are moving in that direction. We cannot make a change to the Constitution without clarification from the Government and all of us that where we are recognising the role of carers, we are in no way saying that people with disabilities or disabled persons are the responsibility of their families. They are holders of human rights in and of themselves and have rights to services, universal design and everything that goes with being citizens and residents of our country. It is important that we do that. Though I am absolutely advocating for a "Yes" vote, there are concerns in that regard.

I have a document asking me to reflect that many disabled activists and disabled persons' organisations are concerned that much of the debate in relation to the proposed fortieth amendment has almost ignored disabled people or included them as an afterthought as recipients of care. It goes on to state that representative groups would like to hear that the Government proposes to use the debate in the lead-up to the referendum to reaffirm the State's commitments to disabled people under the UNCRPD and how two "Yes" votes will make commitments to the lives of disabled people.That is important. I do not think in any way we are seeking to undermine, but it is important we set out very clearly and confidently that we doing that and being sure.

I refer to the article and the enshrining of women. Over the years there have been many debates of women being financed or getting a payment from the State for being at home but it never gave those rights. We have moved to a place where carers are getting pension rights. The Minister, Deputy Humphreys, announced a whole raft of things and there has been a growth in carers’ rights over the past number of years, which is important. It is also important that we reflect the carer as a person. In many of the other debates in this House, we have seen that the voice of the carer can, at times, not be heard strongly enough and not appreciated strongly enough. It is important that we enshrine family carers in the Constitution. We see activists at the gates, we meet with them and we talk to parents with children with disabilities who are not getting services. We need to know that while they are caring, they are also activists and all these other things. The best way to really honour them in the Constitution is to make sure that their children have the services. We need to drive that on in a definite way.

I look forward to tomorrow’s debate. It is interesting if not slightly ill-tempered today. This is an extraordinary privilege. I have long studied the Constitution and here I am speaking to an amendment to it. It is quite a privilege that we should never lose sight of. It is our honour to attempt to shape and, in time to come when there are cases, of which I have no doubt there will be, that the debate in the House and the intentions of the legislators will all be part of that. It is important that it be mature and considered.