Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I come to this Bill now because what I have said relates to one of the aspects of the article we are discussing. It should be borne in mind that the clauses in it applied only to the family, so if there were any positive social policy implications at all, they applied only to women who were married. There was nothing for one-parent families in any of the social policy measures we have had or have not had in this State.

There are a few elements in this clause. I was strongly against a straight removal and argued very strongly against that for a number of years, even before I came into this House. I argued that a straight removal was insufficient. When we talk about this benign interpretation of what was intended at the time, we need to be clear that this came in the 1930s, after the Eucharistic Congress, accompanied by a raft of other measures, including the measure removing women from juries because, of course, if they were on juries, it would distract them from their duties in the home. That was Kevin O'Higgins's law to get women out of juries. It was accompanied by the marriage bar, which came in in the 1930s. These measures were not part of the founding of the early part of the State. They were brought in as a wave. We know that McQuaid, not then yet archbishop, was literally sending in written suggestions for the Constitution.

Let us therefore be clear as to where this came from. Many of those who campaigned against it in 1937 did so because they saw the framing and what it was coming from. Part of the line, "that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support", is a bit of a dig at those whose life outside the home not just gave to the State a support but actually gave us our State. I refer to the many women who were involved in the movement to create our State. It was many of those who campaigned in 1916 and who were part of the War of Independence who actually came out and campaigned against this Constitution because they saw that it did not reflect their role in the State. It certainly does not reflect the role of women now in the State. I was, however, passionately against a pure removal because we have to look to what is valuable, and it is important that there be a recognition of care and a recognition that people's lives are not simply economic units or at work or what they do outside, and that what happens in the home, what happens within families and what happens in terms of the care between us is valuable. Care is the invisible support structure. It is the lifeblood of a society. It is what we all rely on. That gives a support to the State. That recognition is crucial.

I come to my concerns about how this is done, and I hope the Minister can address them. The framing we have here is much narrower than that suggested by the Joint Committee on Gender Equality. That disappoints me. I am not saying it is not still a step forward, but it is very narrowly framed. The Minister spoke about the idea of "strive to support". We need to know what that will mean. Will "strive to support" be substantial? Will it be that strenuous and great effort? Will it be more than "reasonable measures", which is what the committee had suggested? Will it be more than "endeavour to ensure", which is the current language in the Constitution, language which, again, applies only to married women, not to men or any of the other families? Will it be stronger than "endeavour to ensure", in terms of what the State will commit to? The Minister spoke about the State having robust care infrastructure and a professional care system that wraps around family care. That is something, but how will that be asserted? Again, I want to ensure that the State will not come back and argue in the courts, "We did not mean much by 'strive'", when people say, "The professional care system and the supports you are giving me are not enough." I want to ensure we will not have a combative State that seeks to dilute the term. The Minister needs to come back, being clear, and bring in the legislative measures and the social policy measures that show he is really serious about this. I refer to things like, for example, the statutory entitlement to home care, which is long overdue. I have been here eight years and, again, I campaigned on that before I was ever elected to the Seanad. We were looking for a statutory entitlement to home care. That needs to come.

There is another issue. We will table a really good amendment. I regret that we have this symbolic date rather than a time. We will have a recommendation whereby we will talk about the bonds between family and community because the connections and the bonds between us in care are not limited to the bonds between family. They are the bonds between community as well. That should be recognised. That does not come into the commercial concerns that have been mentioned. It addresses the fact that the duty we have, including the duty reflected in our public services, is a collective one.I am also concerned that the language refers to "provision of care to" rather than addressing the question of "care between". That is important because we do not want to have any perceived hierarchy between the persons receiving care and the persons giving care in that sense.

Others have asked the Minister about the UNCRPD. I ask him to be clear that this will be complementary to and not in conflict with the UNCRPD. Whatever justiciable rights may come from a change to the Constitution crucially there must be justiciable rights reflected by the optional protocol to the UNCRPD being ratified so that every individual in the State who has a disability is able to seek and vindicate their own rights under the UNCRPD. That is how the Government can show that it is serious. I regret that we are not as far as we should be on that. I hope that one of the next referendums we have is something like have seen in Spain this week. This week Spain is changing its constitution to provide that public administrations will pursue policies that guarantee the complete autonomy and social inclusion of people with disabilities. Would that not be amazing? Maybe that is what we need to look at next.

Returning to the question of care, the Minister talked about the wraparound piece. It should not just be a wraparound around the families. It needs to go beyond that so that there are supports of care for those even if they are not in a relationship of a family caring for them, but independent rights. That is what I am talking about with the UNCRPD. We are not simply talking about and narrow version of care where the State abdicates its responsibility and passes it to families.

When we talk about making the care infrastructure meaningful, will the Minister ensure that the economic measures are there? That is something that resonates; it is one of the phrases. The hard language in the Constitution was "endeavour to ensure". That is what needs to be set up against. The other important piece is the State's recognition. Through our contributory system and pensions which recognise care, will the State recognise this in terms of addressing the social welfare supports that are really important? When we talk about care, it is not just supporting care in the moment but supporting the capacity of persons to give care while knowing that the State will also economically care for them and make sure that they are able to make that choice and that contribution. We need to hear not just about services, but about the other forms of support the State will offer and the timeline for those.