Michael Noonan (Limerick City, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

Most children in this country are happy. Most children in this country are well looked after. I often stand back in admiration at the way young mothers and fathers look after their children, how they educate them, take them to school, take them to football, hurling, swimming, music and dancing and all the other things children do. One hears jocose complaints from mothers that sometimes they spend half their lives on the road ferrying their children from one place to another. When we concentrate on the children at risk who need to be protected, under both the law and the Constitution, we should remember that it is the exception and should look at the norm.

The norm in Ireland is a situation where there are great families looking after their children, putting a great deal of effort into rearing them and ensuring their physical, intellectual, emotional and spiritual development is first-class, very often making enormous sacrifices to ensure their children get the best chance possible. We are dealing here with something that is now considered essential because of the various incidents throughout the country that came to our attention. It is very important that the specific rights of the child should be enshrined in the Constitution so that in the very small number of exceptional cases the State may be allowed, with the protection of the Constitution, to intervene to protect those children who are at risk. That is what is involved here. It is important because there has been such debate about children being abused and at risk in families and other situations that the norm in Ireland, namely, decent families looking after their children and very happy children being brought forward, very often with great sacrifice to their parents, is forgotten.

I served on the committee on children's rights that worked to introduce appropriate wording to put into the Constitution. The committee was very ably chaired by the former Deputy, Mary O'Rourke. The Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, Deputy Frances Fitzgerald, and the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Alan Shatter, were members. The then leader of Sinn Féin, Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin, made a very strong intervention and was a great attender at meetings. Deputy Alex White represented the Labour Party and there were many Deputies and Senators of all parties who worked on that committee, clearing away much of the undergrowth and irrelevancy and allowing Members of all parties to concentrate on what was essential.

In the nature of all-party committees, there were compromises at the end. The wording introduced, although it enjoyed the support of all parties, probably was not, in some respects, the first preference of any particular party. In the interests of compromise and unanimity additional words were included. It was important, therefore, when the Minister, Deputy Fitzgerald, took over, that the wording would be re-examined and that which was deemed to be redundant or unnecessary was taken out. I have no objection to that because I believe the words now published by the Minister in the Bill are better, more succinct and focused than the wording that came from the all-party committee. That is probably the view of many of the colleagues of all parties who served on that committee.

I have two points in regard to that committee. Sometimes words are included to get consensus. There was a phrase that some people believed should have been maintained, namely, "cherishing the children of the nation". We know its origin; it came from the 1916 Proclamation but when one considers the Proclamation that phrase was never about children. Echoing Wolfe Tone, "children" referred to all the people of Ireland, the concept being that Catholic, Protestant and Dissenter would be covered by the common name of Irishman so that all the children of the nation would be cherished equally. These were not children, however, and the reference was to citizens of this Republic. Therefore, although it was a nice idea on the part of the committee dealing with the children and the Constitution to incorporate this wording it actually comes from a different origin and was stating something quite different.

It is also important to remember that when the Supreme Court looks at the Constitution and makes decisions on it, it expects that we, as legislators, do not get involved in inserting redundant language into what we decide is appropriate for amendment. It looks at such on the basis that the Legislature has examined it and there is no redundant wording so that if a word is included the court will ascribe a meaning to that word on the assumption that we have scrutinised it, and that we intended a meaning when we inserted it. It is not possible to dress up a constitutional amendment in attractive wording that might appeal to the electorate. If we do that, the Supreme Court will decide that if we put it in we must have meant something and it will try to decide what is meant. There can then be a ruling from the Supreme Court which could be different from the intention of the Parliament, the Dáil and Seanad. I totally approve of the manner in which the Minister pruned the wording that came from the all-party committee and brought it down to a much more succinct representation.

It is also worth noting that there has been a good record by the State in looking after children. Unlike what happens in other countries, children at risk in Ireland receive family care through the fosterage system. By and large, our children at risk are not put into institutions for long periods but are placed in families and have the ambience and protection of the family. Like all other children, in effect they are brought up within families. It is very important to acknowledge that and the great work that is done both by so many families who take children on fosterage and the State agencies that monitor their care when they are fostered.

I wish to comment on the actual debate. Although very good speeches were made last night across party lines, giving real insight into what is required and what are the intentions of the Minister and the Government in proposing this amendment, nonetheless the debate did not get any mention in news bulletins last night. The broadcasting institutions, including RTE, have a responsibility to cover not only conflict but also, as public broadcasters, in respect of something such as a constitutional amendment, to explain the intention and to use the debates on all sides of this House, which were excellent last night, to bring those explanations to the attention of the people. RTE, in particular, as well as the other broadcasting institutions, has a very narrow view of what it may do in terms of covering referenda. I do not believe it must put a stopwatch on the debate and divide it, 50:50, between those for and against. I do not believe justice done on sentences, as in the Coughlan judgment, carries that implication. As long as the coverage is fair and balanced, it seems to me that broadcasters are within their rights of coverage. In a referendum such as this, where most - I believe all - Members of both Dáil and Seanad, as well as the groups and non-governmental organisations that are most interested in the care of children, advocate a "Yes" vote, inventing opponents to the amendment on the basis of giving 50% of the time to a non-existent set of opponents is a very peculiar way to approach this issue. RTE should look at this again and if it gives coverage in a fair and balanced way it seems to me it will fulfil the obligations of the judgment.

There is another issue. RTE should distinguish between its set-piece debates and news coverage. In my view, the Supreme Court judgment is not intended to apply to news. There is an entire area within news where RTE can help the public debate by presenting the facts and the issues, where it is not constrained by the judgment of the Supreme Court. If it had taken the opportunity last night to report on the Second Stage debate in this House it could have done so without contravening any judgment and without having to invent a bogeyman or bogeywoman to come on and give an alternative opinion, even though such does not exist. I would like RTE to look again at that because it is important to do so.

I received a briefing note from the Minister's Department setting out the aims of the new article and I believe this is worth putting on the record as, I am sure, speakers have already done.

It states that the central aim of the new article is directly to recognise children in their own right within the Constitution and by doing so to give children special protection because of their age and potential vulnerability. In brief, the constitutional amendment for people to decide by referendum aims to do the following: to place the article in the Constitution which directly deals with children's rights; to revise the language used regarding when and how the State should be able to step in and protect the welfare and safety of a child to put a focus on the child. This will continue to recognise that children are best reared by their parents and that it is only in exceptional cases where parents fail in their duty towards their children that the State should take action to ensure the safety and the welfare of children; to require that any action by the State to protect children should be proportionate, meaning that actions should be measured strictly by reference to tackling the problems causing harm to the child; to provide that the rights and protections set out in the new article should apply equally to all children regardless of whether or not their parents are married; to allow for the adoption of children in wider circumstances than at present. This will allow for a revised approach to be set out in law for the adoption of certain children who have been reared by foster parents for a considerable period by reason of the failure of their parents to look after or care for them. It will allow also for a new law to make possible the voluntary placement for adoption of any child, including children whose parents are married; to add to the strength of existing laws that require the best interests of the child to be the first and most important consideration for judges in deciding court cases concerning child protection and welfare, adoption, guardianship, custody of and access to any child; and to ensure that in making decisions in court cases of the kind already mentioned above the views and wishes of the child should be obtained and taken fully into account bearing in mind the child's age and maturity.

That last point is very important because it is not only that the amendment will give a specific constitutional right to the rights of children or that the State will be enabled, without any fear of crossing constitutional boundaries, to intervene to protect children in exceptional cases but when the court does intervene to protect children, the child will have a say in its own future. That is very important. We are all familiar with children. Many of us have children and we know that at a very early age children have a reasonably good view of what they want and what is in their best interests. It is very important that that right should be in the Constitution and that the court should be directed in processes protecting the interests of children to take the views of children into account.

I congratulate the Minister, Deputy Fitzgerald, for the work she has done. She has done an amazing piece of work after such a long delay. People were talking about this 20 years ago going back to the Kilkenny incest case when there was a recommendation that this should be done. After such a short period in Government, it is admirable that the Minister, Deputy Fitzgerald, has brought this legislation forward and that she has had consultations with many interest groups and has their confidence to the degree that they are backing this amendment.

So far the Roman Catholic Church has been silent, and the other churches have not come out on it yet. I would like if the churches made a clear statement at an early date indicating that they favoured this referendum.

See this speech in context