Joanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)

I thank the Ceann Comhairle and the Minister of State. Like the Minister of State, I studied history at third level. One reason I love it as a subject is that while not all of it is about progress, much of it is. I refer, in particular, to the progress made through politics. Often, when preparing to speak in a debate in the House, I look up the Official Report of historic debates on the Oireachtas website to find out what was said about an issue in the past. Today I looked up the phrase "children's rights" and, as far as I could make out, it was not really mentioned until 1965, when the Minister of the day, Brian Lenihan Snr., spoke about children's rights in the context of the Succession Act. Thereafter, its use became more frequent in the 1970s and 1990s.

In the course of my searches of the website I discovered there had been a debate in this House in which Deputies Howlin and Higgins had participated on 27 February 1992. Moreover, the Minister of State's father, Mr. David Andrews, was Minister for Foreign Affairs at the time. The debate was on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. As Deputy Ó Fearghaíl noted, Ireland had signed the convention in September 1990 but not ratified it by February 1992. Consequently, Deputies Howlin, Higgins and others asked the then Minister for an update as to when the Government intended to ratify it. The then Minister, Mr. Andrews, told them that the Government was "fully committed to ratifying the Convention at the earliest possible opportunity". He also stated, "The views of the Attorney General are being sought with regard to what additional measures, if any, are required to enable the Government to proceed to ratification." Deputy Higgins then asked him whether he would review the consequences of delaying ratification and in response the Minister of State's father replied that he certainly would do what Deputy Higgins had requested. A few months later, on 7 October 1992, he informed the Dáil that in the course of his visit to the United Nations at the end of September he had deposited with the UN legal counsel the instrument of ratification by Ireland of the convention and that it would enter into force in Ireland on 28 October 1992. In other words, he had made that progress within a year.

My point is that progress has been made during the years on children's rights. Moreover, this train of thought runs through our history as a state, dating back to the Proclamation. I often have spoken about the highly progressive move made on universal children's allowance in 1943. The Labour Party supported its introduction by the then Minister, Seán Lemass. As the Minister of State spoke yesterday, I noticed he picked up on a view expressed by Mr. Justice Adrian Hardiman that the wording of the Proclamation did not refer to children but to people in the nation and that it related specifically to minority groups, rather than the literal understanding of children as one may read it. I do not agree. The point about documents such as the Proclamation is that they are universal and open to interpretation. It is highly likely that when the word "children" was used in the Proclamation in 1916, it was not used lightly. It probably was used to mean everyone as children of the nation and to refer to children specifically. The proposed amendment would introduce the phrase, "the State will cherish the children of the nation equally". As Deputy Rabbitte pointed out in an article he wrote on the Proclamation a couple of years ago, it is the use of the word "children" that gives the term "equally" all the more power. Consequently, it is quite likely that the word was used by the authors of the Proclamation to mean children literally, as well as a collective description of everyone as children of the nation. As I stated, it is a universal document and people are right to interpret it in the manner they do. I do not agree with Mr. Justice Hardiman in this regard.

Obviously, the State has experienced many failures. Members have debated the Ryan and Murphy reports and all the issues that arise therefrom. Members are familiar with the ill-treatment, abuse and neglect of children, about which they read in the newspapers. While people make the point that this often takes place within the family, the State often has a role also through its failure to step in to protect children when it should. When one considers the wording of the Constitution and the reference to children in Article 42, children are brought in as an afterthought. It talks about parents initially and then mentions children. While the Constitution has been interpreted highly positively in respect of the implicit rights of children, certainly the manner in which it is set out is not explicit about children's rights and tends to perceive them not as individuals but as members of their families. In addition, there is a strong train of thought that considers children to be the property of their parents. One talks about parental choice in respect of issues pertaining to children. As for the idea that children should be seen and not heard, I remember people would talk in such a way when I was a child. Obviously, there are many failures within our society in the vindication of children's rights.

As for the rationale for making children's rights explicit in the Constitution, I refer to the conclusions of the joint committee. I commend everyone, including Deputies Howlin, O'Rourke, Ó Caoláin, Shatter, Senator Alex White, the Minister of State and anyone I may have omitted, for the thorough way in which they went about their work which was evident as I read through the report today.

They set out the reasons they see gaps in the Constitution, but there is a value in expressly setting down children's rights. It would inform policy development.

We face many challenges as we try to rebuild the economy and to develop a society that is fair. It is important that we now set out children's rights in the Constitution so they inform our policy making, allowing us to take into consideration the idea that we should treat all of our children equally. That would be a progressive move.

See this speech in context