Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

Tairgim leasú a 4:

I gCuid 1, leathanach 7, líne 23, “a thabharfaidh an Stát” a scriosadh agus “ar páirtí iontu an Stát” a chur ina ionad,

agus

I gCuid 2, leathanach 9, líne 23, “brought by the State” a scriosadh agus “that the State is party to” a chur ina ionad.

I move amendment No. 4:

In Part 1, page 6, line 23, to delete “a thabharfaidh an Stát” and substitute “ar páirtí iontu an Stát”,

and

In Part 2, page 8, line 23, to delete “brought by the State” and substitute “that the State is party to”.

This amendment seeks, in Part 2, page 8, line 23, to delete the words "brought by the State" and substitute "that the State is party to". Amendment No. 6, in part 2, page 8, line 27 seeks to insert after "access to" the words "or any other judicial matter concerning".

It states: "In part 2, page 8, line 27, after "access to," to insert "or any other judicial matter concerning,". The net effect of that would be that Article 42.A.4.1o.i would begin "that the State is party to as guardian of the common good etc". It is very important because we are limiting the potential good that can come from this constitutional amendment to only those cases that are brought by the State rather than the State being a party to specific cases. That could present itself in a variety of situations, not only situations that might refer to some of the issues mentioned by colleagues earlier in both cases. There is a common thread in terms of where we would liked to have seen all of this go but situations could also arise where the State, in regard to its failures, is party to non-compliance or whatever might be the case regarding what is affirmed in the section, that is, guardianship of the common good for the purpose of preventing the safety and welfare of any child from being prejudicially affected. It narrows it down only to the point that the State is the initiator and the only entity that can have its role affirmed from this constitutional amendment. Provision should be made in law that in the resolution of all proceedings to which the State is party in those roles, acting in the best interests of the child shall be the paramount consideration.

I urge the Minister to favourably consider this amendment. In regard to Article 42.A.4.1o.ii on the adoption, guardianship, custody of, access to or any judicial matter concerning any child - and there are endless possibilities - it is too limiting. While I acknowledge that my role as a member of the all-party committee demonstrated that we would like to see the position on the rights of the child affirmed in Irish law in reflection of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child - that would be our objective - we know well that this was a compromise position among all parties. I was happy to be a party to that, ultimately, because we were almost working off a blank sheet and what was presented from the all-party position was something that would be a mighty start that we would view not as an end result but a beginning. It would be something to be built on in the future. I am indicating that there is much more that can and should be done. If it is the case that it is not to be accepted on this occasion we are putting down the marker that we believe it should be done if not in our time, Minister, by others who will follow in the years ahead as legislators who will have the wherewithal and be brave enough and bold enough to do so.

Ensuring that the best interests of the child must be the paramount consideration in all cases to which the State is party is our hope and intent, not just guardianship and not merely where the State is the initiator. What of the situation where the State is the respondent, the defendant? The changes I commend would allow far more scope in terms of examining how far the best interest principle could be brought and it would also allow for children's voices to be heard in all judicial matters concerning them. At this point in time children's voices, that is, views, as the amendment suggests, will only be heard in regard to particular instances that will present. Unquestionably, a variety of other cases will present in the future where children's views will not be heard and where the current seen but not heard approach will be maintained. I would like to see that changed in all instances in the best interests of all children.

See this speech in context