Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail)

The whole ethos of subsidiarity is much honoured in speeches and sentiment, but the principle is not given practical effect. There is a lesson in that for Government and the Houses on the need to play a role in that regard.

The name of Éamon de Valera will be forever linked with the Constitution, as being the main motivator, instigator and, perhaps, author of it. However, even he acknowledged the tremendous role played by our civil servants in drafting the document. Reference has been made to Professor Keogh's book, The Making of the 1937 Constitution. My sister Pauline gave me a number of books for Christmas, of which that was one. However, I chose lighter reading, such as the Tim Flood story about Wexford hurling in the 1950s, Ronnie Delaney's book about winning his medal in Melbourne and the autobiography of Lee Sharpe, the Manchester United player, which I read during January. I regret now I did not read Professor Keogh's book because I would be much more knowledgeable about the issue if I had applied myself to it. I am looking forward to digesting it, because all I have heard and the flick-through I have given it indicate it is a fine account of the Constitution, a document that has stood the test of time.

It is interesting, given the state of legal affairs and some legislation at the time, particularly that enacted from 1922 up to the drafting of the Constitution, that legal and other queries were made with regard to their status on adoption of the Constitution. An aspect that struck me as interesting was the original understanding that was adopted and emerged subsequently in law. Some of our learned legal people will be probably familiar with this. Subsequent interpretation by the Supreme Court went back to see what was the thinking of the people in 1937 in this regard. That is a sound principle.

With the utmost of respect to the Supreme Court, and to the comments made by Senator Alex White which reminded me of it, I do not think that when the decision was being made on the case in 1992, it reflected the thinking of the people in incorporating a right to life of the unborn in our Constitution. That amendment to the Constitution clearly allowed for a situation of the equal right to life of the mother. I think the intention of all concerned was that this would be in a health emergency where decisions had to be made as to the danger of the loss of life of the mother. It provided some discretion to the medical profession. How that was extended to a situation where a risk of suicide equated to the right to life of the unborn is a matter the average person would find difficult to comprehend. Let us not forget, the Constitution is a document of the average person and to be interpreted by the legal profession in that light.

I will conclude with two points. Many of us who participated, Senator Cummins included, in the debate in these Houses when we incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights into Irish law were very struck — it was acknowledged by all sides of the House and the Minister at the time, who had a good legal brain — by the inclusion of practically all of those rights in a Constitution drafted 70 years earlier. It is remarkable that the foresight, vision and manner in which we should deal with each other and society were reflected so strongly in that document.

Mention has been made of the EU treaty, a topical issue. In a democracy, all power flows from the people. We are fortunate to have a Constitution which gives the right to the citizens at large to make decisions of significance that will affect them in the future. Therefore, the rights of the Oireachtas and public representatives are restricted. We are only the people's representatives and we should not assume or presume to take powers unto ourselves that are rightly vested in the people. The Constitution has stood the test of time and is a document of which the authors and those associated with it can be very proud.