Lynn Boylan (Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire. I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate on the 40th amendment to our Constitution. For a long time, the gendered, sexist language in the existing wording in the Constitution has been criticised. I echo what Senator Higgins said that while many of us have criticised the existing language, we are also very cautious about a straight deletion to the reference. It was widely acknowledged by the citizens' assembly that the role of caregiving deserves to be recognised and valued by our society. Those are the bonds that hold us together. Currently carers are not respected or valued by the State. Every day we hear stories of carers who go about their thankless job of caregiving. They are often exhausted, worn out and cannot get respite. They fight a constant uphill battle to access services and supports for the individuals they are providing care for.

It is regrettable, therefore, that when the opportunity came up to amend our Constitution to remove the sexist language from it and replace it with a recognition of the value of care, it has failed to offer genuine change. I ask the Minister to outline why the Government failed to accept the wording of the committee and instead has offered a weakened text which is deeply regrettable. As others have mentioned already, instead of accepting the Oireachtas committee's recommendation that the State has an obligation to take reasonable measures to support care within the home and the wider community, it feels like all the work done the citizens' assembly and the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Gender Equality was in vain. Both of those bodies spent a long time very carefully going over the reasoning not to have a straight deletion and for ensuring that care is recognised. They worked diligently and engaged with all the stakeholders, with civil society, with disability groups and with carers themselves. They brought forwards proposals in a transparent and democratic manner. I urge the Minister to explain why the committee's wording which had cross-party political support was not accepted. Why is it that the best we can offer carers is that we will strive to support care?

I congratulate FLAC on today's win at the Supreme Court. The FLAC CEO, Eilis Barry, rightly pointed out that the word "strive" is like a new year's resolution. The Government may have the best of intentions and may absolutely be 100% committed to trying to achieve it, but it is not an enforceable obligation for it to fulfil its resolution. That is the wrong message to give to carers across the country. It fails to provide them with the clarity and respect they deserve.

We are about to fight a referendum campaign. In the other referendums we have had in recent years it was very clearly set out what the difference would be for somebody's life if they voted "Yes" or if they voted to retain the status quo. I do not think we can tangibly point to the difference this amendment will make. What will it offer carers? As has been pointed out by disability rights groups and FLAC, should the referendum pass, it is deeply concerning that the reference in the Constitution will restrict people with disabilities to being objects of care. That is coming from those organisations; it is not me saying that. That is their real legitimate concern.

Every day we see and hear the advertisements informing us that disability rights are human rights. Yet by adopting the current proposal we are nearly narrowing the narrative of disabled people from being active citizens in society to being a group of people who are a burden of care or receivers of care. That does a huge disservice to disabled people who have participated in other campaigns for a more inclusive Ireland. They have campaigned for other changes to our Constitution to make Ireland more progressive for others. Disabled people are voters and taxpayers. Like carers, they also need to hear how this proposed referendum will deliver any meaningful change for them. How will it enable them to live independent lives? Disabled people want to hear how a real personal assistance service will be delivered.

By removing that gendered language of care from our Constitution we may have symbolically liberated women from the home, but people with disabilities want to hear how they will be liberated by this amendment. I have yet to hear a good argument for that. It will be a difficult referendum to fight for if we cannot point to the tangible differences it will make to carers and people with disabilities.