John Lyons (Dublin North West, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I want to acknowledge the work carried out over the years by various civil society groups and others that has brought us to this point. I want to credit the members of the cross-party committee on the constitutional amendment on children and the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, Deputy Fitzgerald, for their combined work on this issue. I also want to recognise the cross-party support for the wording of this amendment. The initial welcome from across the political spectrum shows not just the necessity for this amendment but also that it is one issue where politics can rise above party political concerns and campaign for the right result.

Our Constitution is a document of which we can be largely proud but it is very much of its time, the 1930s. Being of its time, the family unit is recognised as the fundamental unit group in society and the State guarantees to protect it. The special protection of the family in the Constitution has resulted in some notable exceptions, including an explicit statement of the rights of a child. This, as we have seen in many cases of neglect, placed limitations on our ability to intervene where the best interests of the child were at stake.

In this regard, this amendment is a reflection of the lessons learned since 1937 in the failures of child protection such as those detailed in the Roscommon child case, the Ryan commission report and the Cloyne report. We were collectively shaken by these reports of neglect, abuse and hurt into recognising the limits of our Constitution in the area of child welfare. The general public now wants to address this issue. That is not to say this is an exercise in overextending the power granted to the State at the expense of the family. Rather, it is to reflect the child's rights in the Constitution. Our Constitution, as a living document, should reflect how our values and priorities change over time. This amendment is a clear example of this.

I recognise this Bill is only the beginning of the debate but I believe the concerns of those who have expressed caution about this Bill are unfounded and addressed by the language of the amendment. From examining the amendment, it makes several important clarifications. It recognises the importance of the family and does not seek to replace it. This is a message we need to get across when we are on the doorsteps campaigning. It affirms the rights of all children. It states intervention can only take place in "exceptional circumstances" where "parents fail in their duty toward their children to such an extent that the safety or welfare of their children is likely to be affected". The State will act "by proportionate means" to "endeavour to supply the place of parents" if such an exceptional circumstance arises. This language recognises that the family unit is not under threat while the motivation is for protecting the rights of the child.

Referenda are obviously a public vote on a legal text. Not being legally trained, I recognise how one has to take expert opinion on the intention of a text and its legislative strength. With this referendum, there is an onus on Members to stress the importance of this amendment to our constituents, particularly in disadvantaged areas. Our message to our constituents has to be succinct, to the point and in most simplified way to ensure full understanding of the proposal. All too often, the booklet on the referendum that comes in the door contains text difficult to understand. Rumours and Chinese whispers can turn an issue into something that it is not. I am already heartened by the intention of my party colleagues to campaign for a "Yes" vote. I hope other political expressions in favour of this amendment are followed through on the doorsteps. Every Member must campaign for this referendum. The concern is that it may be thought this vote can easily be won. We cannot allow that to happen.

We have an obligation to get out and meet people at the door, answer questions they have, explain the issues involved, check to see that they are singing from one hymn sheet and that they understand what they are being asked to do on 10 November.

I echo a point made by my colleague, Deputy Ciara Conway, on the application of the broadcasting legislation in respect of balanced coverage. In this instance, a judgment should be made on the balance of public opinion, not on strict 50:50 coverage. This points to the McKenna judgment. The reality is that there may be 50:50 coverage of an issue on which a significant majority believe taking one course of action is the right thing to do. It is somewhat uncomfortable to think the judgment allow an equal say to those on one side of the argument who may represent only a small minority. This calls into question the provisions in place under the Broadcasting Act relating to balanced coverage.

The Bill and the upcoming referendum are very important for the provision of child services. The legislation is in the best interests of the children of Ireland. Our values as a caring society and citizens of a republic require the rights of the child to be asserted in the Constitution. The amendment recognises the vulnerability of children and provides for a proportionate response, whereby the interests of the child will be at the heart of the decision-making process. The amendment is not an end in itself and the education and welfare services must have continued funding to support and protect children. This is also a chance for the people to affirm the protection of the child, learn from the failures of the past and resolve that they will not be repeated.

I thank the Acting Chairman for giving me the opportunity to speak to the Bill. I look forward to campaigning for a "Yes" vote between now and 10 November.

See this speech in context