Seán Kenny (Dublin North East, Labour) | Oireachtas source

Speaking on the vetting legislation last week, I stated that this amendment would enshrine the rights of children in our Constitution for the first time and afford to adopted children protection that does not currently exist. The constitutional rights the amendment will provide to children are robust in a way that does not undermine the rights of parents unless they have failed in their duty towards their children.

I wholeheartedly welcome the amendment and its wording. I pay tribute to the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, Deputy Frances Fitzgerald, and Mr. Geoffrey Shannon, the Government's special rapporteur on child protection, for the work they have done. It would be remiss to fail to pay tribute to previous Oireachtas committees for the work they did. I also commend the excellent decision by the Government to hold the referendum on a Saturday. This will provide greater opportunities to vote for those who might otherwise be unable to so if the referendum were held on a weekday. I hope this decision sets a precedent for future polls.

I and Senator Rónán Mullen, a leading conservative commentator, differ on many issues. However, the Senator supports the amendment on the basis that the balance of the wording is right. If people of differing social outlooks are able to agree that the amendment should be supported, it indicates that those from the extreme conservative end of the political spectrum who oppose the referendum are on very weak ground when they argue against it.

Those few people against this referendum should seriously reconsider their viewpoint on it and look again at the wording. I want to draw attention to the views expressed by the former MEP, Ms Kathy Sinnott, and explain why I believe they are misguided. Ms Sinnott suggests the amendment, if passed, will give the State preference over parents when deciding what is in a child's best interests and may give the State too much power. This argument misses the point. The amendment will force the State to consider the rights of the child above all else in a proportional way. Under the terms of the amended Constitution, it will ensure the State will not be permitted to run roughshod over the rights of parents. It must consider the rights of the child to ensure the well-being of that child. Accordingly, this means the right of the child to be with its parent or parents would have to be considered seriously and not ignored.

I am concerned those in agreement with Ms Sinnott are ignoring the role the State has played in the abuse and profound mistreatment of children in the past. Do those who are against this amendment not see the reason the State did nothing to protect children was because children had no rights, thereby allowing the State to do as little as it pleased? Do those opposed to this amendment not realise that the wording acts to curb excessive control by the State by stating in Article 42A that it is in "exceptional cases" where the State becomes involved and only "by proportionate means as provided by law"? This wording means the State must exercise reason, not lack of it and must provide legislation for it to act. We in this House, who represent the people, will be charged with deciding what the State can or cannot do. I cannot foresee a situation where legislators, regardless of what side of the political spectrum they are on, will allow the State to do as it pleases.

I want to also draw attention to the 2009 horrific case in which a mother of six children in Roscommon was convicted on ten counts of incest, sexual abuse and neglect of her children. The six children, aged between six and 15, were not fed properly and were beaten and abused on regular occasions. Circuit Court Judge Miriam Reynolds who heard the case said at the time there was room for future legislation to be drawn up to deal with the actions of the woman concerned. When passing sentence in the case, she stated she was working under legislation dating back to 1908. On reading the amendment wording, it is crystal clear legislation in this area will be required if the amendment is passed.

One of the barristers involved in the Roscommon case asked Judge Reynolds to take into consideration that the wider community must have known of the abuse that was occurring. He also said it must have been obvious when the children attended school they were badly dressed and badly cared for. The lives of these children have been destroyed by the actions of their mother. It is difficult to understand how these children could have been let live in the family home for so long. They should have been removed from the family home for their own safety.

While this is a rare type of case in terms of the extreme behaviour and cruelty that occurred, it is a clear example of why this referendum is needed. Even the most ardent opponent of this amendment to the Constitution must surely agree such cases merit intervention by the State to protect children. I am in no doubt there are other such cases and also circumstances that never make it to the courts, where the behaviour of parents, although less extreme, is still absolutely criminal and cruel and warrants the protection of children without recourse to parental rights.

This amendment will give children clear rights under the Constitution. I am firmly of the view it will not be a case of the State intervening on a whim but in order to protect children in their own right and not in the context of their parents’ rights.

I commend the amendment to the House.

See this speech in context