Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister. It is good that hopefully before the referendum we should have the result of the roadmap and dates for the optional protocol. That would be something very substantial that would send a really positive signal. I look forward to the outcome in the next number of weeks. Perhaps this might accelerate it.

The Minister mentioned a number of areas in which the State needs to show its sincerity and show the spirit in which it is carrying this forward with “shall strive to support the provision of care”. The Minister has given a number of examples and that is very useful to have. The roadmap forward is really important.

There are other Departments which are relevant. I am looking particularly at the Department of Social Protection and, indeed, the Department of Health. It would be useful and important if they would come forward and be very clear in what they believe are the additional measures they will have to take to strive to support care if we have this shift in the Constitution. It is striving to support care in all families and not taking a narrow remit - as the Minister noted, it is rectifying families in the first referendum - and the unequal treatment within our social protection system. I am conscious that it is often the Minister out front but we will have to see all of the Government, because this is an all-of-government proposal, coming forward and being clear and strong about what it is offering.

I had a number of points that evolved during the debate. I will park some of them because I am sure that when the debate finishes here we will go out and have the debate in the public realm and we will continue to talk about these issues. It has been a really interesting debate. The language from everyone is around the inadequacy of what is there at the moment. However, it has also been clear that the idea of different functions for men and women and that there should be very distinct bounded roles is not something that solely existed in 1937.There are those who still believe that we should have a very separate role defined in terms of mothers and women in the Constitution that excludes others and that we would have a different function and shape in society rather than a society that recognises care for both men and women. It should also recognise working life for men and women and there is that equal piece. My colleague was completely correct in her observation earlier when she said that Article 45 in terms of the social policy only related to women, but was superseded by the stronger provision that was there in Article 41.1 around mothers in particular. It was the practice of the State for many years, right up to the 1970s, that a married mother was required to leave her job. That flowed from that same spirit.There are those now - and we see it in Hungary in some of the policies coming through there and elsewhere - who would like to see a reification of roles and a pushing back into separate function rather than something that recognises that care matters. It is not enough to leave it as an invisible support to society. It needs to be a visible, recognised, supported and rewarded contribution to society for everybody. Also, the individual choices of both men and women should be respected and valued in an equal way. This includes those men who choose to care full-time and those women who choose to work full-time and those families who share those responsibilities between them.

I had a number of points along the way. I am going to park them right now because I know there are others who want to come in and we are coming to the end of the debate. I had answers to different questions that came up but they have now really gone from me at this point. It is regrettable that we are probably not going to get a chance to vote on all of the very constructive amendments. The process has not been ideal in that it has been truncated. It was an unfortunate and unnecessary choice for us or for me because I believe this is so significant and because the question that will be put is as to whether the Bill should pass and whether there should be constitutional change. I am going to be put into a position of supporting the Bill, but I want to be very clear that it has been unfortunate that the process was not as it should have been. That is regrettable because I think a longer process would have allowed more opportunity to unpack why we need these changes and why change in our Constitution is a positive thing we need to move towards. I have to note that concern but I would be very clear that I do not think simply being frustrated at the process is enough to vote against something that is so significant. We have heard in the past the idea that if one is unsure, go for the statusquo. The status quo is unequal and it is not satisfactory. Even if it is not going far enough, I think we do need to move in the right direction.