Michael Finneran (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Fianna Fail)

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this important subject at the end of what has been an interesting debate.

A key objective of the Government in putting forward the Twenty-eighth Amendment of the Constitution Bill in 2007 was to provide a clear statement on the rights of children, while continuing the constitutional presumption that the best interests of children are served within a stable family. That objective is still valid and was a cornerstone of the committee's work. The Irish people place a particular value on the family of marriage, and I think we are all agreed that any amendment to the Constitution should not in any way weaken its position.

The Minister of State, Deputy Barry Andrews, referred yesterday to the need to make sure that when the amendment is put to the people they understand that these proposals will not challenge or attack the current position of the family. This is very important, as it is not our intention to take away from the rights of the family by giving rights to children. I support his view that these proposals, by promoting interventions to support families in difficulties, may result in better outcomes for children.

The committee's adoption proposals which are similar to those in the 2007 Bill aim to allow some children an opportunity to be part of a new family unit. The proposals will particularly benefit children in long-term foster care, who may have spent their whole lives with their foster family with little or no contact with their natural family. Given that their parents are married, the burden of proof of abandonment that is required for them to be adopted is extremely high. For some of these children, where it would be in their best interests, the proposals would provide a second chance of belonging to a family.

These proposals will not lead to huge numbers of children of marriage being adopted, nor will they alter to any great extent the threshold for State intervention in the family. They will not lead to more children being taken into the care of the State. However, they will permit children to be adopted where it is in their best interests and where a period of time has elapsed in alternative care. It will remove the limbo that some of these children find themselves in - feeling part of one family, but legally part of another with which they have little or no link.

There were two earlier reports by the committee, the first on the exchange of soft information with regard to sexual abuse and the second on the age of consent and defences available to defendants. In both cases, rather than amending the Constitution to deal with the issues raised, a legislative solution was decided upon. The Office of the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, in conjunction with the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, is working on legislation which will provide for the establishment of a national vetting bureau to facilitate the collection and exchange of information, both hard and soft, for vetting purposes. This will be an important step forward in our efforts to prevent abuse of children.

The Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform is working on legislation to deal with the age of consent and other issues, including reforming the law on incest. Again, this will be an important element in the future protection of children. It must be recognised that these are complex issues. In particular, the need to balance the rights of the various parties is key in developing effective but fair legislation, but it is also challenging to achieve that balance successfully. However, significant progress has been made, reflecting the priority that Government has given to the legislation.

Earlier speakers suggested that it should be possible to announce a referendum immediately, and implied that because agreed wording has been put forward by the committee, the Government should not scrutinise the proposal. It would be reckless of the Government to adopt such an attitude. There are a number of things that need to be done before a referendum can be announced. As the committee recommended, a number of pieces of legislation in the adoption area need to be drafted and published. To ensure that from the beginning of a referendum campaign clear information is available, this legislation needs to be presented before a campaign commences. It is also possible that other legislation may also need to be published in advance of the referendum, and the Attorney General will advise on that. The Government needs to clarify what legislation needs to be drafted, how complex it will be to draft and how long it will take before it can realistically set a date for a referendum.

As many speakers have said, the work of the joint committee in reaching consensus on difficult, complex and sensitive issues was a significant achievement and I congratulate it. The Government places considerable weight on the value of this consensus and has no wish to move away from it. However, the fact that there is cross-party consensus does not mean that the Government can abrogate its responsibilities, which it would do if it did not carefully examine the wording. It is essential that the wording of the referendum proposal be forensically examined for its implications, including its implications in areas outside child welfare and protection.

The committee's wording extends well beyond the realm of child protection and impacts on the areas of education and health and may potentially impact on immigration policy. In March, the Government referred the proposals to a senior officials group that reports to the Cabinet sub-committee on social inclusion to carry out this work as quickly as possible. The relevant Departments are looking at the wording in that context and will report back shortly on any issues that emerge.

As the Minister of State, Deputy Barry Andrews, said yesterday, the Government must ensure that no unintended consequences arise from the wording. It is the responsibility of Government when putting the referendum to the people to ensure there is no ambiguity or doubt about the wording and that people are clear on the effects of the proposal. It would not be acceptable for any Government to put a proposal for constitutional change to the people without having examined it in detail.

The committee took more than two years to complete its work. It is not unreasonable for the Government to take the time it needs to get this right. These are complex issues, as the committee found. Getting it right is not easy but it is essential. The Government's responsibility is to ensure the referendum, if passed, will have the effect intended and no accidental impact. Any amendment to the Constitution is a major endeavour. In this case, where the issues are so complex, it is essential the Government takes the time to get it right. Until it is clear what, if any, issues need to be addressed, it would be premature to announce a date for a referendum. The Government will announce a date as soon as it is possible to do so, and when this referendum is brought to the people, it will have been properly considered and all the issues dealt with.

See this speech in context