Shane Ross (Dublin South, Independent) | Oireachtas source

A dedicated amendment to the Constitution on the children of this State is something no one can oppose in any rational way, not just for emotional reasons but for good, sensible, non-political reasons. To some extent I regard it as a type of cleansing of a shameful record which this State has in the protection of its children.

We are very keen to blame the churches - rightly so - for the clerical abuse which occurred and also other institutions for what happened to children in our shameful past. However, the State ignored what was happening, turned a blind eye to it or did not know - when the opposite should have been the case - what was being visited on the children of the nation. The constitutional amendment is a way of cleansing the conscience of the nation and absolving ourselves for our record in this regard. In that sense, it is not merely a case of taking an approach similar to that adopted by Pontius Pilate, it is also a way of remedying a situation which was unacceptable. We should all be ashamed of the culture of turning a blind eye with regard to the abuse of children. If the amendment has a tangible effect in resolving matters in this regard, then I welcome it. The debate that will ensue in the forthcoming referendum will assist in cleansing the polluted atmosphere that has surrounded the fate of the children of the nation.

I was taken by what Deputy Luke 'Ming' Flanagan said about children. We tend to be particularly patronising towards children and their inability to make up their minds and express their views. The constitutional amendment will also help to remedy matters in this regard. Children of a very young age can make intelligent decisions in their own interests. In many instances, they know - far better than adults - what is good for them. For example, children who are of an age where they can answer questions in an intelligent fashion and who go before the Adoption Board are regularly asked whether being adopted is their wish. Their reply in this regard is material. In that context, whether they say "Yes" or "No" is absolutely vital. If a child says he or she does not want to be adopted, his or her wish must be taken extraordinarily seriously and the matter must be investigated. Let us not be overly patronising towards children; rather let us say they should be consulted in a sophisticated way because they often know - better than adults who are, or who are supposed to be, striving to protect them - what is good for them, what they want and what will fulfil their emotional needs. The Bill makes a significant advance in that regard.

In view of State's record in this area, I am somewhat uneasy about it being allowed to intervene, in certain circumstances and as a last resort, where children are under pressure. However, I do not see a solution to this problem. I hope a very broad-based, caring and humane body will be put in place to intervene on behalf of children in cases where they are being threatened by those who are looking after them or who are supposed to be doing so or by their protectors or guardians in difficult or controversial circumstances.

It is welcome that the inequalities in the adoption process are being remedied. I was unaware - I am sure this was the case with many other Members - that there were still such inequalities. During the years I have seen a raft of legislation in which the treatment of children has been equalised, regardless of the marital status of their parents. That is a matter which obviously should be remedied. If what is before us is the final remedy in removing an existing anomaly, I welcome it.

See this speech in context