Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

It is entirely appropriate that as the Minister sits here and listens to the debate, she has a copy of the Constitution in front of her. Perhaps she carries it with her all of the time but it is particularly appropriate that she has it here tonight because, of course, it is the Constitution itself that we are seeking to change. As we do this, it is appropriate to reflect on where the Constitution came from and the good that it has done the State to date.

As we acknowledge the 75th anniversary of this document, which Deputy O'Donovan did earlier, it is very easy to forget what a brave and progressive document it was in the context of where Ireland stood then. It stood as a small country on the edge of a very fraught and uncertain Europe. There were many recognitions and systems put into that document that have served our country very well and have stood the test of time. However, as many other speakers have commented, the one group that was not referenced at all was children. One factor that distinguishes them is that, unlike other groups that were referenced in that document, children do not have the ability to organise themselves or to come together collectively and articulate what they are looking for in the way that many other groups, that were rightfully enumerated in the document, do. Children do not choose their parents nor the families into which they arrive. The environment is something that is a given for them and they have to choose how to respond to it. With that in mind, it is an omission in the document that has not served our country well and that has had terrible consequences for children over different generations.

When we talk about children within the amendment we are putting forward to the country, we are not just talking about children at risk. We are actually talking about all children. We are talking about making sure that they, as a group and as individuals, are explicitly recognised within our Constitution and that their rights are clearly called out. This will have many consequences in the future which, in truth, few of us can foretell. We do not know how they will develop and crystallise. That can only be a good thing for the group that has not been recognised to date.

The number of children we are talking about, notwithstanding what I have just said, who might be affected by this constitutional amendment in a material way is, thankfully, tiny. However, these are children to whom we have not given the right protection or support over the years.

One aspect of the amendment that I particularly welcome is that the threshold for intervention it sets is high enough to ensure that it will only be called in or triggered in exceptional cases, where children are not just being let down by their families but are being afforded no form of protection at all and are in desperate need of support. At the same time, the threshold is not so low as to augment the fears of those who have concerns regarding an expansionist State or are worried about the State trying to take the place of parents. If such people actually read the wording of the amendment, I hope they will see that such fears are groundless and will not be materialised.

The best way I can finish my short contribution is to quote from the amendment itself. Members have all studied the wording and I hope the people do as they contemplate how they will vote. One particular phrase is worth emphasising, "...the State as guardian of the common good shall, by proportionate means as provided by law, endeavour to supply the place of the parents...". We are talking here about the common good. A philosopher once said that the way to judge the maturity and success of a democracy is by how it treats its most vulnerable. We are dealing here with an articulation of the common good that recognises the young people who need our help the most, who offer the clearest vision possible of what the common good looks like. The phrase "endeavour to supply the place of parents" is important. The State is not looking to take the place of parents. It has no such ambition and is not seeking to do so. It is simply saying that in the case of those children who need our help the most, we will realise the common good by giving them all the help that we can. Changing these words in the Constitution will allow us to do that better in the future.

See this speech in context