Cllr Sarah O’Reilly: Vote No –Inclusivity should not mean deletion it should mean addition

The proposed Government amendments are exceptionally poorly written. The language in these amendments is unclear, confused and offers no material help or rights to families or carers.

The Constitution is our fundamental legal document. It contains the core rights of citizens and defines the roles and responsibilities of the State. It is not the location for empty virtue signalling from the Government in an election year.

The proposed Article 42b does nothing to help these families and they deserve far better than this.

The Government should be strengthening the support for these families to be able to choose to care, not weakening it. Article 41.2 recognises that ‘by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved’. It is proposed that this would be deleted and replaced by an article recognising that the provision of care by members of a family ‘gives to society a support without, which the common good cannot be achieved and shall strive to support such provision’.

It would have been possible to amend Article 41.2.1 to include both genders, to better reflect contemporary society.

This government has shown a worrying tendency of trying to delete the word woman from legislation, healthcare and wider society.

Inclusivity should not mean deletion it should mean addition. The Government has reneged on its promise to hold a Referendum on the right to a home. It is proposing in this amendment to delete one of the few references to a home in the Constitution.

Care has never been as undervalued in society as it is now. Childcare providers are being forced to close.

Nursing homes are being forced to close and children in State care are being put into special emergency accommodation where there is little or no regulation in their care. The ‘Care’ Amendment will not bring meaningful obligation on the State to support parents, support children, older people or people with disabilities.

Voters are also to be asked to amend Article 41.1.1, which recognises the family ‘as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of society’. It would, instead, define the family as ‘whether founded on marriage or on other durable relationships’.

In relation to the Government’s amendment on the meaning of the family in the Constitution, it is offering the people a ‘definition free’ Constitutional amendment. The consequences of this amendment are impossible to predict. The term “durable relationships” is not defined. The Electoral Commission has suggested only what the term ‘could’ mean.

The Electoral Commission has said that a ‘durable relationship’ could be defined by a couple getting a Christmas card or a couple being invited to a wedding together.

There is continuous confusion of definitions when it comes to really important issues.

When does a durable relationship start?

When does it end? Consequences could be far reaching. What will the amendment mean in practical terms? What will it mean for social welfare, taxation, succession, migration, family law?

We simply don’t know. If the Government really wanted to support families or those who provide care, then it would be focused on reforming the carer's allowance qualification criteria; it would be focused on better funding for day care centres and tackling the ever increasing cost of childcare.