Michael McDowell (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I am just saying that those who actually did something in the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s to assist women to work outside the home while giving them assistance in the care of their infant children ran into cold winds based on the most ridiculous of grounds that they were not Catholic crèches but non-denominational and interdenominational crèches.

That is all I want to say but I want to say those things. The provision we are supposed to be taking out of Article 41.2 was well-intentioned and pro-woman, and was not intended to force women to remain in the home. It merely obliged the State. It is not a directive principle of social policy to be found in Article 45. It is a direct obligation, just as much as the provision of aid to private education is a direct obligation of the State in Article 42. The provision in this case found expression in measures such as children's allowance, which was payable to the mother. It also found expression in the Murphy decision in 1980. The Supreme Court looked at Article 41.2 and specifically relied on the protection that women should not be obliged by economic necessity to work outside the home to the neglect of their duty in the home as part of its reasoning in forcing the State to introduce a pro-family tax regime. It is not a dead letter and was not one in 1980 when Francis and Mary Murphy successfully relied on it in the Supreme Court to stop themselves being taxed unfairly. We had a discussion about taxation this morning. The Murphys relied on the provisions of the Constitution to do that.

If we get to the point where there is a legislative basis for working from home, the present wording of Article 41.2 would give a strong argument to anybody who says they were being forced by their employer, and particularly by the State, to work in an office unreasonably when economic difficulty is imposed on them in looking after the children of the family. That is all I have to say.